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.
32 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Eldrenkampgreen2 sentences2010State v. Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d 877 (Iowa 1995), reiterated that information found in medical records contains “privileged communications under section 622.10 ‘to the same extent that the knowledge and information of the examining or treating physician is privileged.’ ” Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d at 881 (quoting Newman, 249 Iowa at 844 , 89 N.W.2d at 355 ). 2010State v. Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d 877 (Iowa 1995), reiterated that information found in medical records contains “privileged communications under section 622.10 ‘to the same extent that the knowledge and information of the examining or treating physician is privileged.’ ” Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d at 881 (quoting Newman, 249 Iowa at 844 , 89 N.W.2d at 355 ). | 2 | 3 |
Tat Man Chung v. Legacy Corp.green2 sentences2001See Chung v. Legacy Corp., 548 N.W.2d 147, 150 (Iowa 1996) (holding that "[t]he denial of an element or factor of one’s opponent’s case” does not operate as a waiver of the section 622.10 privilege). 2001See Chung v. Legacy Corp., 548 N.W.2d 147, 150 (Iowa 1996) (holding that "[t]he denial of an element or factor of one's opponent's case" does not operate as a waiver of the section 622.10 privilege). | 2 | 2 |
McMaster v. Iowa Board of Psychology Examinersgreen2 sentences2016See Iowa Code § 622.10 (1) (providing a “mental health professional . . . shall not be allowed, in giving testimony, to disclose any confidential communication properly entrusted to the person in the person’s professional capacity”); id. § 622.10(6)(e)(1) (defining medical records as “containing a patient’s health or billing information”); see also McMaster v. Iowa Bd. of Psychology Exam’rs, 509 N.W.2d 754, 757 (Iowa 1993) (“The privilege in section 622.10 is limited to disclosure of confidential communications by the giving of testimony.”). 14 Furthermore, we do not find the journal is needle 1994McMaster v. Board of Psychology Examiners, 509 N.W.2d 754, 757 (Iowa 1993). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Godfreygreen2 sentences2013See State v. Godfrey, 775 N.W.2d 723, 724 (Iowa 2009) (per curiam); State ex rel. 2013See State v. Godfrey, 775 N.W.2d 723, 724 (Iowa 2009) (per curiam); State ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Hutchinsongreen2 sentences2006See In re Marriage of Hutchinson, 588 N.W.2d 442, 446 (Iowa 1999). [T]he section 622.10 privilege includes declarations by a witness in court or in a deposition. 2006See In re Marriage of Hutchinson, 588 N.W.2d 442, 446 (Iowa 1999). 18 [T]he section 622.10 privilege includes declarations by a witness in court or in a deposition. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Demaraygreen2 sentences2006For example, we have held that “[t]he privilege extends to medical records that contain information which would be inadmissible at trial as oral testimony from the physician.” State v. Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d 877, 881 (Iowa 1995); see also State v. Demaray, 704 N.W.2d 60, 64-65 (Iowa 2005) (stating that medical records containing the results of Demaray’s blood test were covered by the physician/patient privilege). 2006For example, we have held that “[t]he privilege extends to medical records that contain information which would be inadmissible at trial as oral testimony from the physician.” State v. Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d 877, 881 (Iowa 1995); see also State v. Demaray, 704 N.W.2d 60, 64-65 (Iowa 2005) (stating that medical records containing the results of Demaray’s blood test were covered by the physician/patient privilege). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Colegreen2 sentences1992Snethen v. State, 308 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Iowa 1981); State v. Cole, 295 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa 1980). 1992Snethen v. State, 308 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Iowa 1981); State v. Cole, 295 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa 1980). | 2 | 2 |
State v. District Court of Iowa, in & for Linn Countygreen2 sentences1980Under the second element the privilege is limited to “all knowledge and information gained by the physician in the observation and personal examination of the patient in the discharge of his duties.” State v. District Court, 218 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Iowa 1974). 1976State v. District Court of Iowa, In & For Linn County, 218 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Iowa 1974). | 2 | 2 |
Chidester v. Needlesgreen2 sentences1999Id. 1999Chidester v. Needles, 353 N.W.2d 849, 852 (Iowa 1984). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Nowlingreen2 sentences1991State v. Nowlin, 244 N.W.2d 596, 602 (Iowa 1976). 1980In Nowlin we listed the elements which must exist in order for a physician-patient privilege to arise under section 622.10: “(1) the relationship of doctor-patient; (2) information acquired during this relationship; and (3) the necessity and propriety of the information to enable the doctor to treat the patient skillfully in his professional capacity. [Authority.]” 244 N.W.2d at 602 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bedelgreen2 sentences1983See, e.g., State v. Bedel, 193 N.W.2d 121 (Iowa 1971). 1974In Bedel, supra, the third essential element required to trigger the § 622.10 privilege was lacking. | 1 | 2 |
Bailey v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.green1 sentence2024Iowa has enshrined its attorney–client privilege in Iowa Code 16 section 622.10, and our caselaw recognizes that this provision effectuates a priv- ilege “of ancient origin.” Bailey v. Chi., Burlington & Quincy R.R., 179 N.W.2d 560, 563 (Iowa 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Keefe v. Bernardgreen1 sentence2024The privilege “bars attorneys from disclosing confidential com- munications.” Keefe v. Bernard, 774 N.W.2d 663, 669 (Iowa 2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hardingreen1 sentence2023See State v. Hardin, 569 N.W.2d 517, 520 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (noting the privilege is not “designed as a shield” to conceal patient information); but see State v. Leedom, 938 N.W.2d 177 , 189-90 (Iowa 2020) (noting medical details disclosed through cross-examination would not result in a waiver of the privilege). | 1 | 1 |
Shook v. CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWAgreen1 sentence2021Our law recognizes that a “confidential communication between an attorney and the attorney’s client is absolutely privileged from disclosure against the will of the client.” Fenceroy, 903 N.W.2d at 242-43 (citing Shook v. City of Davenport, 497 N.W.2d 883, 886 (Iowa 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Am. Indus. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Randlegreen1 sentence2020See State v. Randle, 484 N.W.2d 220, 221 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (reiterating “information communicated to a third party who is not within the scope of the privilege destroys the confidential nature of the disclosures and renders them admissible”). 5 Doorenbos refers only to the general proposition that courts strictly construe privileges under section 622.10 because they impede the “full and free discovery of the truth.” See In re A.M., 856 N.W.2d 365, 373 (Iowa 2014). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of A.M., Minor Child. Heather Thomas, Subpoenaed Witnessgreen1 sentence2020See State v. Randle, 484 N.W.2d 220, 221 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (reiterating “information communicated to a third party who is not within the scope of the privilege destroys the confidential nature of the disclosures and renders them admissible”). 5 Doorenbos refers only to the general proposition that courts strictly construe privileges under section 622.10 because they impede the “full and free discovery of the truth.” See In re A.M., 856 N.W.2d 365, 373 (Iowa 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Jerry L. And Susan Ashenfelter Vs. Amy S. Mulligangreen2 sentences2015See Ashenfelter, 792 N.W.2d at 671-72 . 2015See Ashenfelter, 792 N.W.2d at 671– 72. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Richmondgreen1 sentence2014State v. Richmond, 590 N.W.2d 33, 35 (Iowa 1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Heemstragreen1 sentence2014See Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d at 559-60, 563 (remanding case for in camera inspection of treatment records despite confidentiality claimed under both section 228.2 and section 622.10). | 1 | 1 |
Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hospitalgreen2 sentences1999Iowa Code § 622.10 (“The prohibition does not apply to cases where the person in whose favor the prohibition is made waives the right conferred .... ”); Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hosp., 253 Iowa 1360, 1362 , 115 N.W.2d 816, 817 (1962) (holding that the section 622.10 privilege is personal to the patient and only the patient may claim or waive the confidentiality). *447 B. 1999Iowa Code § 622.10 (“The prohibition does not apply to cases where the person in whose favor the prohibition is made waives the right conferred .... ”); Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hosp., 253 Iowa 1360, 1362 , 115 N.W.2d 816, 817 (1962) (holding that the section 622.10 privilege is personal to the patient and only the patient may claim or waive the confidentiality). *447 B. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Craneygreen1 sentence1998See State v. Craney, 347 N.W.2d 668, 677 (Iowa 1984) (privilege under Iowa Code section 622.10 extends only to communications “entrusted” to a practicing attorney). | 1 | 1 |
Snethen v. Stategreen2 sentences1992Snethen v. State, 308 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Iowa 1981); State v. Cole, 295 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa 1980). 1992Snethen v. State, 308 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Iowa 1981); State v. Cole, 295 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa 1980). | 1 | 1 |
| In the Interest of Hochmuthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Richard Wayne Leedomgreen1 sentence2023See State v. Hardin, 569 N.W.2d 517, 520 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (noting the privilege is not “designed as a shield” to conceal patient information); but see State v. Leedom, 938 N.W.2d 177 , 189-90 (Iowa 2020) (noting medical details disclosed through cross-examination would not result in a waiver of the privilege). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Gaumergreen1 sentence1981But cf. In re Marriage of Gaumer, 303 N.W.2d 136, 138 (Iowa 1981) (psychologist not “counselor” within meaning of section 622.10). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roosevelt Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Sweeney
green
2 sentences2009Partnership v. Sweeney, 394 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 1986), we addressed ex parte informal interviews between attorneys and treating physicians. 2009Partnership v. Sweeney, 394 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 1986), we addressed ex parte informal interviews between attorneys and treating physicians. | 3 | 1999–2009 |
State v. More
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 722-23 . 2016Id. at 722–23. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Harder v. Anderson, Arnold, Dickey, Jensen, Gullickson & Sanger, L.L.P.
green
1 sentence2014Hill-Hunt and Kavalier, asserting the children’s doctor/patient and therapist/patient privileges pursuant to Iowa Code section 622.10 (2011) and Harder v. Anderson, Arnold, Dickey, Jensen, Gullickson & Sanger, L.L.P., 764 N.W.2d 534 (Iowa 2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
green
2 sentences2013Finally, the State asserts that to the extent Neiderbach has met his burden on the question of production of mental health records, the in camera inspection provision of section 622.10(a)(2)(b) is constitutional under Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 , 57-58, 107 S. Ct. 989 , 1001-02, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40 , 57-58 (1987), and because a defendant will have to identify the information sought with reasonable specificity, enabling the district court to better find potentially exculpatory evidence. 2. 2013Finally, the State asserts that to the extent Neiderbach has met his burden on the question of production of mental health records, the in camera inspection provision of section 622.10(a)(2)(b) is constitutional under Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 , 57-58, 107 S. Ct. 989 , 1001-02, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40 , 57-58 (1987), and because a defendant will have to identify the information sought with reasonable specificity, enabling the district court to better find potentially exculpatory evidence. 2. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Newman v. Blom
green
2 sentences2010State v. Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d 877 (Iowa 1995), reiterated that information found in medical records contains “privileged communications under section 622.10 ‘to the same extent that the knowledge and information of the examining or treating physician is privileged.’ ” Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d at 881 (quoting Newman, 249 Iowa at 844 , 89 N.W.2d at 355 ). 2010State v. Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d 877 (Iowa 1995), reiterated that information found in medical records contains “privileged communications under section 622.10 ‘to the same extent that the knowledge and information of the examining or treating physician is privileged.’ ” Eldrenkamp, 541 N.W.2d at 881 (quoting Newman, 249 Iowa at 844 , 89 N.W.2d at 355 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.