Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2011See Pinder, 678 So.2d at 415-16 (“Given the function of counseling, it is improbable that an in cam,era inspection of counseling records would uncover information critical to the defense, irreplaceable by other means.”); Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 413 Pa.Super. 95 , 604 A.2d 1036, 1046 (1992) (“The compelling interest in allowing this rehabilitative process to occur in private is not to build a case for the prosecution, but rather to deal with the trauma of the assault and begin the healing process.”); cf. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 43 , 107 S.Ct. 989 (providing that CYS’s function was to investigate 2011See Pinder, 678 So.2d at 415-16 (“Given the function of counseling, it is improbable that an in cam,era inspection of counseling records would uncover information critical to the defense, irreplaceable by other means.”); Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 413 Pa.Super. 95 , 604 A.2d 1036, 1046 (1992) (“The compelling interest in allowing this rehabilitative process to occur in private is not to build a case for the prosecution, but rather to deal with the trauma of the assault and begin the healing process.”); cf. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 43 , 107 S.Ct. 989 (providing that CYS’s function was to investigate | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pindergreen2 sentences2011See Pinder, 678 So.2d at 415-16 ("Given the function of counseling, it is improbable that an in camera inspection of counseling records would uncover information critical to the defense, irreplaceable by other means."); Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 413 Pa.Super. 95 , 604 A.2d 1036, 1046 (1992) ("The compelling interest in allowing this rehabilitative process to occur in private is not to build a case for the prosecution, but rather to deal with the trauma of the assault and begin the healing process."); cf. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 43 , 107 S.Ct. 989 (providing that CYS's function was to investigate s 2011See Pinder, 678 So.2d at 415-16 (“Given the function of counseling, it is improbable that an in cam,era inspection of counseling records would uncover information critical to the defense, irreplaceable by other means.”); Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 413 Pa.Super. 95 , 604 A.2d 1036, 1046 (1992) (“The compelling interest in allowing this rehabilitative process to occur in private is not to build a case for the prosecution, but rather to deal with the trauma of the assault and begin the healing process.”); cf. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 43 , 107 S.Ct. 989 (providing that CYS’s function was to investigate | 2 | 2 |
Canfield v. Sandockgreen2 sentences2011See Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 526, 529 (Ind. 1990) (discussing the creation of the physician-patient privilege). 2011See Canfield, v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 526, 529 (Ind.1990) (discussing the creation of the physician-patient privilege). | 2 | 2 |
Jaffee v. Redmondgreen2 sentences2019The interest advanced by the counselor-client privilege is substantially similar to that advanced by the victim advocate privilege at issue in Crisis Connection, namely, to foster “an atmosphere of confidence and trust in which the patient is willing to make a frank and complete disclosure of facts, emotions, memories, and fears.” Id. (quoting Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996)). 6 The majority states that “Creason did not diagnose A.F. with RAD[.]” Slip op. at 3. 2011Notably, the Jaffee Court rejected a balancing approach to the application of the psychotherapist-patient privilege: “Making the promise of confidentiality contingent upon a trial judge’s later evaluation of the relevant importance of the patient’s interest in privacy and the evidentiary need for disclosure would eviscerate the effectiveness of the privilege.” Id. at 17 , 116 S.Ct. 1923 . | 1 | 3 |
In Re Crisis Connection, Inc.green2 sentences2012See 949 N.E.2d at 795 . 2012See 949 N.E.2d at 795 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Turnergreen1 sentence2010Id. at 647. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wilson, 529 Pa. 268 , 602 A.2d 1290, 1294 (1992), cert. denied. 2010See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wilson, 529 Pa. 268 , 602 A.2d 1290, 1294 (1992), cert. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Crisis Connection, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011This privilege protects victims, victim advocates, and victim service providers [1] from being "compelled to give testimony, to produce records, or to disclose any information concerning confidential communications [2] and confidential information [3] to anyone or in any judicial, legislative, or administrative proceeding." Ind.Code § 35-37-6-9(a) (2008). [4] The *793 General Assembly has expressly provided that the victim advocate privilege applies in cases like the present one. [5] Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that this privilege applies to Crisis Connection's records, In re Subpoe 2011This privilege protects victims, victim advocates, and victim service providers 1 from being “compelled to give testimony, to produce records, or to disclose any information concerning confidential communications 2 and confidential information 3 to anyone or in any judicial, legislative, or administrative proceeding.” Ind.Code § 35-37-6-9(a) (2008). 4 The General Assembly has expressly provided that the victim advocate privilege applies in cases like the present one. 5 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that this privilege applies to Crisis Connection’s records, In re Subpoena to Crisis Co | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
green
2 sentences2011See Pinder, 678 So.2d at 415-16 (“Given the function of counseling, it is improbable that an in cam,era inspection of counseling records would uncover information critical to the defense, irreplaceable by other means.”); Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 413 Pa.Super. 95 , 604 A.2d 1036, 1046 (1992) (“The compelling interest in allowing this rehabilitative process to occur in private is not to build a case for the prosecution, but rather to deal with the trauma of the assault and begin the healing process.”); cf. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 43 , 107 S.Ct. 989 (providing that CYS’s function was to investigate 2011See Pinder, 678 So.2d at 415-16 (“Given the function of counseling, it is improbable that an in cam,era inspection of counseling records would uncover information critical to the defense, irreplaceable by other means.”); Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 413 Pa.Super. 95 , 604 A.2d 1036, 1046 (1992) (“The compelling interest in allowing this rehabilitative process to occur in private is not to build a case for the prosecution, but rather to deal with the trauma of the assault and begin the healing process.”); cf. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 43 , 107 S.Ct. 989 (providing that CYS’s function was to investigate | 2 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Nixon
green
1 sentence2019The interest advanced by the counselor-client privilege is substantially similar to that advanced by the victim advocate privilege at issue in Crisis Connection, namely, to foster “an atmosphere of confidence and trust in which the patient is willing to make a frank and complete disclosure of facts, emotions, memories, and fears.” Id. (quoting Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996)). 6 The majority states that “Creason did not diagnose A.F. with RAD[.]” Slip op. at 3. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.