27 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bobo v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri 2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri | 5 | 8 |
Kennestone Hospital, Inc. v. Hopsongreen2 sentences2011Cf. Alston & Bird LLP, 307 Ga. App. at 645 (4). 14 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 . 15 Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 ; see also Kennestone Hosp., Inc., 273 Ga. at 148 (“[T]he fact that a patient has undergone psychiatric treatment and the dates of the care are not subject to the psychiatrist-patient privilege[,]”); Cranford v. Cranford, 120 Ga. App. 470, 472-73 (2) ( 170 SE2d 844 ) (1969) (same). 16 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 328 ; Plunkett, 217 Ga. App. at 22 . 17 Mincey includes as a separate enumeration of error the trial court’s implicit overruling of her motion to exclude GDCA’s expert witness 2007Haughton argued at trial that her objection was timely because she had thirteen days to file it — ten days plus three days for mailing —• and that Canning was therefore liable for producing the records over her objection. (a) Haughton contends that the trial court erred in failing to give her requested charge that “a failure to act in response to a request for privileged matter from a non-party health care provider or facility under OCGA§ 9-11-34 (c) (2) does not waive the party’s psychiatrist-patient privilege,” citing Kennestone Hosp. v. Hopson, 273 Ga. 145, 149 ( 538 SE2d 742 ) (2000). | 4 | 6 |
Wilson v. Bonnergreen2 sentences1997See also Wilson v. Bonner, 166 Ga.App. 9, 16-17 , 303 S.E.2d 134 (1983) (appellee went to psychiatrist of her own volition for the purpose of seeking treatment, thus creating requisite confidential relationship to which the psychiatrist-patient privilege applies). 1997See also Wilson v. Bonner, 166 Ga.App. 9, 16-17 , 303 S.E.2d 134 (1983) (appellee went to psychiatrist of her own volition for the purpose of seeking treatment, thus creating requisite confidential relationship to which the psychiatrist-patient privilege applies). | 4 | 4 |
Sims v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri 2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri | 3 | 4 |
Plunkett v. Ginsburggreen2 sentences2014Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga. App. 20, 21 ( 456 SE2d 595 ) (1995). 2011Cf. Alston & Bird LLP, 307 Ga. App. at 645 (4). 14 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 . 15 Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 ; see also Kennestone Hosp., Inc., 273 Ga. at 148 (“[T]he fact that a patient has undergone psychiatric treatment and the dates of the care are not subject to the psychiatrist-patient privilege[,]”); Cranford v. Cranford, 120 Ga. App. 470, 472-73 (2) ( 170 SE2d 844 ) (1969) (same). 16 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 328 ; Plunkett, 217 Ga. App. at 22 . 17 Mincey includes as a separate enumeration of error the trial court’s implicit overruling of her motion to exclude GDCA’s expert witness | 3 | 4 |
Jaffee v. Redmondgreen2 sentences2014An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.’” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 18 ( 116 SCt 1923 , 135 LE2d 337) (1996), quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 ( 101 SCt 677 , 66 LE2d 584) (1981) (discussing attorney-client privilege). 2014An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.’” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 18 ( 116 SCt 1923 , 135 LE2d 337) (1996), quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 ( 101 SCt 677 , 66 LE2d 584) (1981) (discussing attorney-client privilege). | 2 | 2 |
Upjohn Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.’” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 18 ( 116 SCt 1923 , 135 LE2d 337) (1996), quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 ( 101 SCt 677 , 66 LE2d 584) (1981) (discussing attorney-client privilege). 2014An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.’” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 18 ( 116 SCt 1923 , 135 LE2d 337) (1996), quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 ( 101 SCt 677 , 66 LE2d 584) (1981) (discussing attorney-client privilege). | 2 | 2 |
Mincey v. Georgia Department of Community Affairsgreen2 sentences2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri 2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri | 2 | 2 |
Cranford v. Cranfordgreen2 sentences2011Cf. Alston & Bird LLP, 307 Ga. App. at 645 (4). 14 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 . 15 Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 ; see also Kennestone Hosp., Inc., 273 Ga. at 148 (“[T]he fact that a patient has undergone psychiatric treatment and the dates of the care are not subject to the psychiatrist-patient privilege[,]”); Cranford v. Cranford, 120 Ga. App. 470, 472-73 (2) ( 170 SE2d 844 ) (1969) (same). 16 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 328 ; Plunkett, 217 Ga. App. at 22 . 17 Mincey includes as a separate enumeration of error the trial court’s implicit overruling of her motion to exclude GDCA’s expert witness 2011Cf. Alston & Bird LLP, 307 Ga. App. at 645 (4). 14 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 . 15 Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 ; see also Kennestone Hosp., Inc., 273 Ga. at 148 (“[T]he fact that a patient has undergone psychiatric treatment and the dates of the care are not subject to the psychiatrist-patient privilege[,]”); Cranford v. Cranford, 120 Ga. App. 470, 472-73 (2) ( 170 SE2d 844 ) (1969) (same). 16 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 328 ; Plunkett, 217 Ga. App. at 22 . 17 Mincey includes as a separate enumeration of error the trial court’s implicit overruling of her motion to exclude GDCA’s expert witness | 2 | 2 |
Wiles v. Wilesgreen2 sentences2024See Wiles v. Wiles, 264 Ga. 594, 598 (2) (448 SE2d 681) (1994) (holding that appellate courts review a trial court’s decision about the application of the psychiatrist-patient privilege for an abuse of discretion). 2024See Wiles v. Wiles, 264 Ga. 594, 598 (2) ( 448 SE2d 681 ) (1994) (holding that appellate courts review a trial court’s decision about the application of the psychiatrist-patient privilege for an abuse of discretion). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Herendeengreen2 sentences2011Cf. Alston & Bird LLP, 307 Ga. App. at 645 (4). 14 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 . 15 Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 ; see also Kennestone Hosp., Inc., 273 Ga. at 148 (“[T]he fact that a patient has undergone psychiatric treatment and the dates of the care are not subject to the psychiatrist-patient privilege[,]”); Cranford v. Cranford, 120 Ga. App. 470, 472-73 (2) ( 170 SE2d 844 ) (1969) (same). 16 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 328 ; Plunkett, 217 Ga. App. at 22 . 17 Mincey includes as a separate enumeration of error the trial court’s implicit overruling of her motion to exclude GDCA’s expert witness 2011Cf. Alston & Bird LLP, 307 Ga. App. at 645 (4). 14 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 . 15 Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 ; see also Kennestone Hosp., Inc., 273 Ga. at 148 (“[T]he fact that a patient has undergone psychiatric treatment and the dates of the care are not subject to the psychiatrist-patient privilege[,]”); Cranford v. Cranford, 120 Ga. App. 470, 472-73 (2) ( 170 SE2d 844 ) (1969) (same). 16 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 328 ; Plunkett, 217 Ga. App. at 22 . 17 Mincey includes as a separate enumeration of error the trial court’s implicit overruling of her motion to exclude GDCA’s expert witness | 1 | 2 |
Adams v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See also e.g., Adams v. State, 260 Ga. 298, 300 (2) (392 SE2d 866) (1990) (holding that a trial court’s decision concerning the marital privilege is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Etowah Environment Group, LLC v. Walsh, 333 Ga. App. 464, 475 (3) (774 SE2d 220) (2015) (noting that appellate courts review a trial court’s decision as to the application of the attorney- client privilege for abuse of discretion). 2024See also e.g., Adams v. State, 260 Ga. 298, 300 (2) (392 SE2d 866) (1990) (holding that a trial court’s decision concerning the marital privilege is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Etowah Environment Group, LLC v. Walsh, 333 Ga. App. 464, 475 (3) (774 SE2d 220) (2015) (noting that appellate courts review a trial court’s decision as to the application of the attorney- client privilege for abuse of discretion). | 1 | 1 |
ETOWAH ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, LLC v. WALSH Et Al.green2 sentences2024See also e.g., Adams v. State, 260 Ga. 298, 300 (2) (392 SE2d 866) (1990) (holding that a trial court’s decision concerning the marital privilege is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Etowah Environment Group, LLC v. Walsh, 333 Ga. App. 464, 475 (3) (774 SE2d 220) (2015) (noting that appellate courts review a trial court’s decision as to the application of the attorney- client privilege for abuse of discretion). 2024See also e.g., Adams v. State, 260 Ga. 298, 300 (2) (392 SE2d 866) (1990) (holding that a trial court’s decision concerning the marital privilege is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Etowah Environment Group, LLC v. Walsh, 333 Ga. App. 464, 475 (3) (774 SE2d 220) (2015) (noting that appellate courts review a trial court’s decision as to the application of the attorney- client privilege for abuse of discretion). | 1 | 1 |
Cooksey v. Landrygreen2 sentences2019The Supreme Court further explained in Cooksey , supra, 295 Ga. at 433 (2), 761 S.E.2d 61 , that [c]onsistent with the protections afforded psychiatrist-patient communications even after a patient's death, our legislature has determined that a deceased patient's representative cannot waive the psychiatrist-patient privilege. 2019The Supreme Court further explained in Cooksey , supra, 295 Ga. at 433 (2), 761 S.E.2d 61 , that [c]onsistent with the protections afforded psychiatrist-patient communications even after a patient's death, our legislature has determined that a deceased patient's representative cannot waive the psychiatrist-patient privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Boggess v. Aetna Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2014Co., 128 Ga. App. 190, 192 ( 196 SE2d 172 ) (1973) (discussing attorney-client privilege). 2014Co., 128 Ga. App. 190, 192 ( 196 SE2d 172 ) (1973) (discussing attorney-client privilege). | 1 | 1 |
Alston & Bird LLP v. Mellon Ventures II, L.P.green1 sentence2011Cf. Alston & Bird LLP, 307 Ga. App. at 645 (4). 14 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 . 15 Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 327 ; see also Kennestone Hosp., Inc., 273 Ga. at 148 (“[T]he fact that a patient has undergone psychiatric treatment and the dates of the care are not subject to the psychiatrist-patient privilege[,]”); Cranford v. Cranford, 120 Ga. App. 470, 472-73 (2) ( 170 SE2d 844 ) (1969) (same). 16 See Herendeen, 279 Ga. at 328 ; Plunkett, 217 Ga. App. at 22 . 17 Mincey includes as a separate enumeration of error the trial court’s implicit overruling of her motion to exclude GDCA’s expert witness | 1 | 1 |
Lucas v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Lucas v. State, 274 Ga. 640, 645 (8), 555 S.E.2d 440 (2001). 2010Lucas v. State, 274 Ga. 640, 645 (8), 555 S.E.2d 440 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Mrozinski v. Poguegreen2 sentences2001Georgia law strictly interprets the definition of privileged communication, as we noted in another case involving a custody affidavit, Mrozinski *884 v. Pogue, 205 Ga. App. 731, 734 (2) ( 423 SE2d 405 ) (1992), and again in Sletto v. Hosp. 2001Georgia law strictly interprets the definition of privileged communication, as we noted in another case involving a custody affidavit, Mrozinski *884 v. Pogue, 205 Ga. App. 731, 734 (2) ( 423 SE2d 405 ) (1992), and again in Sletto v. Hosp. | 1 | 1 |
Ale-8-One of America, Inc. v. Graphicolor Services, Inc.green2 sentences1998Since it is well-established that a party’s failure to timely object to a discovery request will result in a waiver of the right to object, we find that Price’s failure to object within ten days resulted in a waiver of his *794 right to object to State Farm’s discovery request based upon the psychiatrist-patient privilege. 1 See Drew v. Hagy, 134 Ga. App. 852 ( 216 SE2d 676 ) (1975); Tompkins v. McMickle, 172 Ga. App. 62, 63 ( 321 SE2d 797 ) (1984); Ale-8-One &c. v. Graphicolor Sues., 166 Ga. App. 506, 507 (1) ( 305 SE2d 14 ) (1983); Smith v. Nat. 1998Since it is well-established that a party’s failure to timely object to a discovery request will result in a waiver of the right to object, we find that Price’s failure to object within ten days resulted in a waiver of his *794 right to object to State Farm’s discovery request based upon the psychiatrist-patient privilege. 1 See Drew v. Hagy, 134 Ga. App. 852 ( 216 SE2d 676 ) (1975); Tompkins v. McMickle, 172 Ga. App. 62, 63 ( 321 SE2d 797 ) (1984); Ale-8-One &c. v. Graphicolor Sues., 166 Ga. App. 506, 507 (1) ( 305 SE2d 14 ) (1983); Smith v. Nat. | 1 | 1 |
Emory University v. Houstongreen2 sentences1998Freeman v. State, 196 Ga. App. 343 -344 ( 396 SE2d 69 ) (1990); Emory Univ. v. Houston, 185 Ga. App. 289, 295 (2) ( 364 SE2d 70 ) (1987), rev’d on other grounds, Emory Clinic v. Houston, 258 Ga. 434 ( 369 SE2d 913 ) (1988); Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga. App. 20, 21 ( 456 SE2d 595 ) (1995); Dynin v. Hall, 207 Ga. App. 337, 338 (1) ( 428 SE2d 89 ) (1993). 1998Freeman v. State, 196 Ga. App. 343 -344 ( 396 SE2d 69 ) (1990); Emory Univ. v. Houston, 185 Ga. App. 289, 295 (2) ( 364 SE2d 70 ) (1987), rev’d on other grounds, Emory Clinic v. Houston, 258 Ga. 434 ( 369 SE2d 913 ) (1988); Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga. App. 20, 21 ( 456 SE2d 595 ) (1995); Dynin v. Hall, 207 Ga. App. 337, 338 (1) ( 428 SE2d 89 ) (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Tompkins v. McMicklegreen2 sentences1998Since it is well-established that a party’s failure to timely object to a discovery request will result in a waiver of the right to object, we find that Price’s failure to object within ten days resulted in a waiver of his *794 right to object to State Farm’s discovery request based upon the psychiatrist-patient privilege. 1 See Drew v. Hagy, 134 Ga. App. 852 ( 216 SE2d 676 ) (1975); Tompkins v. McMickle, 172 Ga. App. 62, 63 ( 321 SE2d 797 ) (1984); Ale-8-One &c. v. Graphicolor Sues., 166 Ga. App. 506, 507 (1) ( 305 SE2d 14 ) (1983); Smith v. Nat. 1998Since it is well-established that a party’s failure to timely object to a discovery request will result in a waiver of the right to object, we find that Price’s failure to object within ten days resulted in a waiver of his *794 right to object to State Farm’s discovery request based upon the psychiatrist-patient privilege. 1 See Drew v. Hagy, 134 Ga. App. 852 ( 216 SE2d 676 ) (1975); Tompkins v. McMickle, 172 Ga. App. 62, 63 ( 321 SE2d 797 ) (1984); Ale-8-One &c. v. Graphicolor Sues., 166 Ga. App. 506, 507 (1) ( 305 SE2d 14 ) (1983); Smith v. Nat. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Nat. Bank of Ga.green2 sentences1998Bank of Ga., 182 Ga. App. 55, 57 (2) ( 354 SE2d 678 ) (1987). 1998Bank of Ga., 182 Ga. App. 55, 57 (2) ( 354 SE2d 678 ) (1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Dynin v. Hallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barnes v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Daughertygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bobo v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri 2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri | 1 | 8 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Massey v. State
green
2 sentences1990However, before the psychiatrist-patient privilege may be invoked, a relationship of psychiatrist and patient must exist, “to the extent that treatment was given or contemplated.” Massey v. State, 226 Ga. 703 ( 177 SE2d 79 ) (1970). 1990However, before the psychiatrist-patient privilege may be invoked, a relationship of psychiatrist and patient must exist, “to the extent that treatment was given or contemplated.” Massey v. State, 226 Ga. 703 ( 177 SE2d 79 ) (1970). | 3 | 1979–1990 |
Trammel v. Bradberry
green
2 sentences2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri 2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Brown v. Liberty Oil & Refining Corp.
green
2 sentences2014Appellees cite Brown v. Liberty Oil & Refinery Corp., supra, 261 Ga. 214 , as authority for the trial 7 We note in response to the dissent that neither OCGA § 24-5-501 (a) nor this opinion should be read as authorizing a psychiatrist to shield himself or herself from potential liability by asserting the psychiatrist-patient privilege on the patient’s behalf. 2014Appellees cite Brown v. Liberty Oil & Refinery Corp., supra, 261 Ga. 214 , as authority for the trial 7 We note in response to the dissent that neither OCGA § 24-5-501 (a) nor this opinion should be read as authorizing a psychiatrist to shield himself or herself from potential liability by asserting the psychiatrist-patient privilege on the patient’s behalf. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Pierce v. State
green
2 sentences1979Pierce v. State, 243 Ga. 454 ( 254 SE2d 838 ) (1979); Massey v. State, 226 Ga. 703 ( 177 SE2d 79 ) (1970). 1979Pierce v. State, 243 Ga. 454 ( 254 SE2d 838 ) (1979); Massey v. State, 226 Ga. 703 ( 177 SE2d 79 ) (1970). | 2 | 1979–1979 |
Hopson v. Kennestone Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003In Hopson v. Kennestone Hosp., 241 Ga. App. 829 ( 526 SE2d 622 ) (1999), we reversed, holding that Hopson had not waived the psychiatrist-patient privilege asserted in her counterclaim, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed our decision. 2003In Hopson v. Kennestone Hosp., 241 Ga. App. 829 ( 526 SE2d 622 ) (1999), we reversed, holding that Hopson had not waived the psychiatrist-patient privilege asserted in her counterclaim, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed our decision. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Emory Clinic v. Houston
green
2 sentences1998Freeman v. State, 196 Ga. App. 343 -344 ( 396 SE2d 69 ) (1990); Emory Univ. v. Houston, 185 Ga. App. 289, 295 (2) ( 364 SE2d 70 ) (1987), rev’d on other grounds, Emory Clinic v. Houston, 258 Ga. 434 ( 369 SE2d 913 ) (1988); Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga. App. 20, 21 ( 456 SE2d 595 ) (1995); Dynin v. Hall, 207 Ga. App. 337, 338 (1) ( 428 SE2d 89 ) (1993). 1998Freeman v. State, 196 Ga. App. 343 -344 ( 396 SE2d 69 ) (1990); Emory Univ. v. Houston, 185 Ga. App. 289, 295 (2) ( 364 SE2d 70 ) (1987), rev’d on other grounds, Emory Clinic v. Houston, 258 Ga. 434 ( 369 SE2d 913 ) (1988); Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga. App. 20, 21 ( 456 SE2d 595 ) (1995); Dynin v. Hall, 207 Ga. App. 337, 338 (1) ( 428 SE2d 89 ) (1993). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Drew v. Hagy
green
2 sentences1998Since it is well-established that a party’s failure to timely object to a discovery request will result in a waiver of the right to object, we find that Price’s failure to object within ten days resulted in a waiver of his *794 right to object to State Farm’s discovery request based upon the psychiatrist-patient privilege. 1 See Drew v. Hagy, 134 Ga. App. 852 ( 216 SE2d 676 ) (1975); Tompkins v. McMickle, 172 Ga. App. 62, 63 ( 321 SE2d 797 ) (1984); Ale-8-One &c. v. Graphicolor Sues., 166 Ga. App. 506, 507 (1) ( 305 SE2d 14 ) (1983); Smith v. Nat. 1998Since it is well-established that a party’s failure to timely object to a discovery request will result in a waiver of the right to object, we find that Price’s failure to object within ten days resulted in a waiver of his *794 right to object to State Farm’s discovery request based upon the psychiatrist-patient privilege. 1 See Drew v. Hagy, 134 Ga. App. 852 ( 216 SE2d 676 ) (1975); Tompkins v. McMickle, 172 Ga. App. 62, 63 ( 321 SE2d 797 ) (1984); Ale-8-One &c. v. Graphicolor Sues., 166 Ga. App. 506, 507 (1) ( 305 SE2d 14 ) (1983); Smith v. Nat. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Freeman v. State
green
2 sentences1998Freeman v. State, 196 Ga. App. 343 -344 ( 396 SE2d 69 ) (1990); Emory Univ. v. Houston, 185 Ga. App. 289, 295 (2) ( 364 SE2d 70 ) (1987), rev’d on other grounds, Emory Clinic v. Houston, 258 Ga. 434 ( 369 SE2d 913 ) (1988); Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga. App. 20, 21 ( 456 SE2d 595 ) (1995); Dynin v. Hall, 207 Ga. App. 337, 338 (1) ( 428 SE2d 89 ) (1993). 1998Freeman v. State, 196 Ga. App. 343 -344 ( 396 SE2d 69 ) (1990); Emory Univ. v. Houston, 185 Ga. App. 289, 295 (2) ( 364 SE2d 70 ) (1987), rev’d on other grounds, Emory Clinic v. Houston, 258 Ga. 434 ( 369 SE2d 913 ) (1988); Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga. App. 20, 21 ( 456 SE2d 595 ) (1995); Dynin v. Hall, 207 Ga. App. 337, 338 (1) ( 428 SE2d 89 ) (1993). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Mayor & Council, City of Hapeville v. Anderson green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Kimble v. Kimble green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Rachals v. State neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Rachals v. State green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Davis v. Alaska green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Jackson v. Denno green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Thadd v. State green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.