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.
26 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reda v. Advocate Health Caregreen2 sentences2022However, “the applicability of a statutory evidentiary privilege, and any exceptions thereto, are matters of law subject to de novo review.” Reda, 199 Ill. 2d at 54 . 2020In re Pension Reform Litigation, 2015 IL 118585, ¶ 43 ; see also Reda, 199 Ill. 2d at 54 (stating “the applicability of a statutory evidentiary privilege, and any exceptions thereto, are matters of law subject to de novo review”). ¶ 20 Treating Physician ¶ 21 We first consider defendants’ argument that Dr. Preston was not an expert but Dameron’s treating physician. | 3 | 12 |
Norskog v. Pfielgreen2 sentences2002Norskog v. Pfiel , 197 Ill. 2d 60, 70-71 , 755 N.E.2d 1, 9 (2001). 2002Norskog v. Pfiel , 197 Ill. 2d 60, 70-71 , 755 N.E.2d 1, 9 (2001). | 2 | 4 |
Leeson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences2006Reda, 199 Ill. 2d at 54 . “[T]he right to discovery is limited to disclosure of matters that will be relevant to the case at hand in order to protect against abuses and unfairness, and a court should deny a discovery request where there is insufficient evidence that the requested discovery is relevant or will lead to such evidence.” Leeson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 190 Ill. 2006Reda, 199 Ill. 2d at 54 . "[T]he right to discovery is limited to disclosure of matters that will be relevant to 1 Defendant's disability claim file is contained in the appellate record but was sealed from plaintiff. -4- 1-05-1854 the case at hand in order to protect against abuses and unfairness, and a court should deny a discovery request where there is insufficient evidence that the requested discovery is relevant or will lead to such evidence." Leeson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 190 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Sparger v. Yaminigreen2 sentences2026Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 211 ; see Sparger v. Yamini, 2019 IL App (1st) 180566, ¶ 16 (“The applicability of a statutory evidentiary privilege, and any exceptions thereto, are matters of law subject to de novo review.”). ¶ 104 Under Reda, the statutory privilege set forth in the Confidentiality Act can only be waived where the “recipient” of mental health services introduces his or her mental condition into the proceeding. 2023Sparger v. Yamini, 2019 IL App (1st) 180566, ¶ 16 . -7- ¶ 18 A. The Act ¶ 19 The purpose of the Act “is to preserve the confidentiality of the records and communications of persons who are receiving or who have received mental-health services.” Novak v. Rathnam, 106 Ill. 2d 478, 483 (1985). | 1 | 3 |
Dc v. Sagreen2 sentences2002Norskog, 197 Ill.2d at 70-71 , 257 Ill.Dec. 899 , 755 N.E.2d 1 ; D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill.2d 551, 559-60 , 227 Ill.Dec. 550 , 687 N.E.2d 1032 (1997). 2002Norskog, 197 Ill. 2d at 70-71 ; D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill. 2d 551, 559-60 (1997). | 1 | 2 |
Novak v. Rathnamgreen1 sentence2023Sparger v. Yamini, 2019 IL App (1st) 180566, ¶ 16 . -7- ¶ 18 A. The Act ¶ 19 The purpose of the Act “is to preserve the confidentiality of the records and communications of persons who are receiving or who have received mental-health services.” Novak v. Rathnam, 106 Ill. 2d 478, 483 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Phipps
green
2 sentences2008This court stated: “When, as in the instant case, a statutory evidentiary privilege comes in direct conflict with a defendant’s constitutional rights of confrontation and due process, we hold that the former must give way so that the fundamental protections of our criminal justice system will not be abrogated.” Phipps, 98 Ill. 2008This court stated: “When, as in the instant case, a statutory evidentiary privilege comes in direct conflict with a defendant’s constitutional rights of confrontation and due process, we hold that the former must give way so that the fundamental protections of our criminal justice system will not be abrogated.” Phipps, 98 Ill. | 6 | 1983–2020 |
Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board
green
1 sentence2026Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 211 ; see Sparger v. Yamini, 2019 IL App (1st) 180566, ¶ 16 (“The applicability of a statutory evidentiary privilege, and any exceptions thereto, are matters of law subject to de novo review.”). ¶ 104 Under Reda, the statutory privilege set forth in the Confidentiality Act can only be waived where the “recipient” of mental health services introduces his or her mental condition into the proceeding. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re DH Ex Rel. Powell
green
1 sentence2021Id. -3- ¶ 13 The Act provides that “[e]xcept as provided herein, in any civil, criminal, administrative, or legislative proceeding, or in any proceeding preliminary thereto, a recipient, and a therapist on behalf and in the interest of a recipient, has the privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent the disclosure of the recipient’s record or communications.” 740 ILCS 110/10(a) (West 2018). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re: the Estate of Blickenstaff
green
1 sentence2013In re Estate of Blickenstaff, 2012 IL App (4th) 120480, ¶ 58 , 980 N.E.2d 1285 ; see also Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill. 2d 47, 54 , 765 N.E.2d 1002, 1007 (2002) (“the applicability of a statutory evidentiary privilege, and any exceptions thereto, are matters of law subject to de novo review”). ¶ 49 Because the real issue here is whether the attorney fees awarded by the trial court were reasonable, however, we need not address whether this alleged agreement is privileged. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kraima v. Ausman
green
1 sentence2009Kraima v. Ausman, 365 Ill. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Walton
green
1 sentence1993App. 3d at 417 , 424 N.E.2d at 730 .) This court in Walton found Phipps distinguishable, stating: “We do not deem the rule of Phipps to be so broad as to negate the necessity of establishing the pertinence of a witness’ psychiatric condition or history to the credibility of his or her testimony before such evidence may be introduced or before a witness’ otherwise confidential mental health records may be subpoenaed or discovered.” (Walton, 107 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.