14 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re OLgreen2 sentences2011For support, appellant cites In re O.L., 584 A.2d 1230, 1233-34 (D.C.1990), and N.P, supra, 882 A.2d at 249-50 . 2011For support, appellant cites In re O.L., 584 A.2d 1230, 1233-34 (D.C.1990), and N.P, supra, 882 A.2d at 249-50 . | 3 | 5 |
In Re Estate of Wilsongreen2 sentences1991Clifford v. United States, 532 A.2d 628, 637 (D.C.1987); In re Estate of Wilson, 416 A.2d 228, 233 (D.C.1980). 1987It is, therefore, a “purely statutory creation.” In re Estate of Wilson, 416 A.2d 228, 233-35 (D.C.1980) (describing the physician-patient privilege) (citations omitted); see D.C.Code § 14-307 (1981 & 1986 Supp.) (setting out the testimonial privilege for “[p]hysicians and mental health professionals”). | 2 | 2 |
Parker v. Barrettgreen2 sentences1980As the court stated in In re Koenig’s Estate, 247 Minn. 580, 588 , 78 N.W.2d 364, 369 (1956), quoting McCormick, Evidence § 105: In contests over the validity of a will, where both sides- — the executor on the one hand and the heirs or next of kin on the other — claim under and not adversely to the decedent, the assumption should prevail that the decedent would desire that the validity of his will should be determined in the fullest light of the facts. 1980As the court stated in In re Koenig's Estate, 247 Minn. 580, 588 , 78 N.W.2d 364, 369 (1956), quoting McCormick, Evidence § 105: In contests over the validity of a will, where both sides the executor on the one hand and the heirs or next of kin on the other claim under and not adversely to the decedent, the assumption should prevail that the decedent would desire that the validity of his will should be determined in the fullest light of the facts. | 2 | 2 |
Burlington Industries v. Exxon Corp.green1 sentence2004See Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 350, 361 , 566 F.2d 242 , 253 nn. 21 & 24 (1977) (citing Burlington Indus, v. Exxon Corp., 65 F.R.D. 26, 37 (D.Md.1974) for the proposition that the privilege is not lost because client’s attorney consults other attorneys about the subject matter of the communication); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003, 265 F.Supp.2d 321, 324-26, 330 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (noting that, in appropriate circumstances the attorney-client privilege extends to communications involving persons assisting the lawyer in the rendition | 1 | 1 |
Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air Forcegreen2 sentences2004See Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 350, 361 , 566 F.2d 242 , 253 nn. 21 & 24 (1977) (citing Burlington Indus, v. Exxon Corp., 65 F.R.D. 26, 37 (D.Md.1974) for the proposition that the privilege is not lost because client’s attorney consults other attorneys about the subject matter of the communication); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003, 265 F.Supp.2d 321, 324-26, 330 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (noting that, in appropriate circumstances the attorney-client privilege extends to communications involving persons assisting the lawyer in the rendition 2004See Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 350, 361 , 566 F.2d 242 , 253 nn. 21 & 24 (1977) (citing Burlington Indus, v. Exxon Corp., 65 F.R.D. 26, 37 (D.Md.1974) for the proposition that the privilege is not lost because client’s attorney consults other attorneys about the subject matter of the communication); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003, 265 F.Supp.2d 321, 324-26, 330 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (noting that, in appropriate circumstances the attorney-client privilege extends to communications involving persons assisting the lawyer in the rendition | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003 Directed to (A) Grand Jury Witness Firm and (B) Grand Jury Witnessgreen1 sentence2004See Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Air Force, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 350, 361 , 566 F.2d 242 , 253 nn. 21 & 24 (1977) (citing Burlington Indus, v. Exxon Corp., 65 F.R.D. 26, 37 (D.Md.1974) for the proposition that the privilege is not lost because client’s attorney consults other attorneys about the subject matter of the communication); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003, 265 F.Supp.2d 321, 324-26, 330 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (noting that, in appropriate circumstances the attorney-client privilege extends to communications involving persons assisting the lawyer in the rendition | 1 | 1 |
Street v. Hedgepathgreen2 sentences1994This statute prevents a physician from disclosing confidential information about his or her patient's condition acquired during that professional relationship without the consent of the patient. [10] Id.; Street v. Hedgepath, 607 A.2d 1238, 1246 (D.C.1992). 1994This statute prevents a physician from disclosing confidential information about his or her patient’s condition acquired during that professional relationship without the consent of the patient. 10 Id.; Street v. Hedgepath, 607 A.2d 1238, 1246 (D.C.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. Smallgreen1 sentence1991But see Sklagen v. Greater Southeast Community Hosp., 625 F.Supp. 991, 992 (D.D.C.1984) (filing action which places physical condition in issue waives physician-patient privilege); cf. Fisher v. Small, 166 A.2d 744, 747 (D.C.1960) (voluntary exchange of medical reports by parties waived physician-patient privilege as to medical condition in issue). | 1 | 1 |
Clifford v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1991Clifford v. United States, 532 A.2d 628, 637 (D.C.1987); In re Estate of Wilson, 416 A.2d 228, 233 (D.C.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sklagen v. Greater Southeast Community Hospitalgreen1 sentence1991But see Sklagen v. Greater Southeast Community Hosp., 625 F.Supp. 991, 992 (D.D.C.1984) (filing action which places physical condition in issue waives physician-patient privilege); cf. Fisher v. Small, 166 A.2d 744, 747 (D.C.1960) (voluntary exchange of medical reports by parties waived physician-patient privilege as to medical condition in issue). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re NP
green
2 sentences2011For support, appellant cites In re O.L., 584 A.2d 1230, 1233-34 (D.C.1990), and N.P, supra, 882 A.2d at 249-50 . 2011For support, appellant cites In re O.L., 584 A.2d 1230, 1233-34 (D.C.1990), and N.P, supra, 882 A.2d at 249-50 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Matter of NH
green
2 sentences1990In N.H., supra, we rejected the contention that only the Mental Health Information Act of 1978, D.C.Code § 6-2002 (1989), applies to the question whether past mental health records may be admitted into evidence in child neglect proceedings where the mother has invoked the physician-patient privilege. 1990In N.H., supra, we rejected the contention that only the Mental Health Information Act of 1978, D.C.Code § 6-2002 (1989), applies to the question whether past mental health records may be admitted into evidence in child neglect proceedings where the mother has invoked the physician-patient privilege. | 2 | 1990–1990 |
In Re the Estate of Thomas
neutral
2 sentences1980The physician-patient privilege is “for the benefit of the patient while living and of his estate when dead.” In re Thomas’ Estate, supra at 59, 4 P.2d at 842-43 , quoting Winters v. Winters, supra, at 58, 71 N.W. at 185 . 1980The physician-patient privilege is "for the benefit of the patient while living and of his estate when dead." In re Thomas' Estate, supra at 59, 4 P.2d at 842-43 , quoting Winters v. Winters, supra, at 58, 71 N.W. at 185 . | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Stafford v. American Security & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1980Stanford v. American Security & Trust Co., 60 App.D.C. 380 , 55 F.2d 542 (1931), relied exclusively on Hutchins in reaching an identical result. 1980Stanford v. American Security & Trust Co., 60 App.D.C. 380 , 55 F.2d 542 (1931), relied exclusively on Hutchins in reaching an identical result. | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Winters v. Winters
green
2 sentences1980The physician-patient privilege is “for the benefit of the patient while living and of his estate when dead.” In re Thomas’ Estate, supra at 59, 4 P.2d at 842-43 , quoting Winters v. Winters, supra, at 58, 71 N.W. at 185 . 1980The physician-patient privilege is "for the benefit of the patient while living and of his estate when dead." In re Thomas' Estate, supra at 59, 4 P.2d at 842-43 , quoting Winters v. Winters, supra, at 58, 71 N.W. at 185 . | 2 | 1980–1980 |
In Re Estate of Koenig
green
2 sentences1980As the court stated in In re Koenig’s Estate, 247 Minn. 580, 588 , 78 N.W.2d 364, 369 (1956), quoting McCormick, Evidence § 105: In contests over the validity of a will, where both sides- — the executor on the one hand and the heirs or next of kin on the other — claim under and not adversely to the decedent, the assumption should prevail that the decedent would desire that the validity of his will should be determined in the fullest light of the facts. 1980As the court stated in In re Koenig's Estate, 247 Minn. 580, 588 , 78 N.W.2d 364, 369 (1956), quoting McCormick, Evidence § 105: In contests over the validity of a will, where both sides the executor on the one hand and the heirs or next of kin on the other claim under and not adversely to the decedent, the assumption should prevail that the decedent would desire that the validity of his will should be determined in the fullest light of the facts. | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Engl v. ætna Life Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1981Cf. Engl v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 139 F.2d 469 (2d Cir. 1943) (where plaintiff asserted the physician-patient privilege during pretrial discovery, she could not, by an assertion that she might at trial waive her privilege and produce sufficient medical testimony to create a prima facie case, overcome summary judgment for the defendant); accord, 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.60[1], at 26-227 & n.4 (2d ed. 1976). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Turner v. American Security & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1980Turner v. American Security & Trust Co., 213 U.S. 257 , 29 S.Ct. 420 , 53 L.Ed. 788 (1909) (affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reported at 29 App.D.C. 460 (1907)). [15] While this court has not previously had occasion to address the issue, we note the absurd result that would occur if the patient's heirs or next of kin could not waive the physician-patient privilege in the context of a hearing on the need to appoint a conservator, held pursuant to D.C. 1980Turner v. American Security & Trust Co., 213 U.S. 257 , 29 S.Ct. 420 , 53 L.Ed. 788 (1909) (affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reported at 29 App.D.C. 460 (1907)). [15] While this court has not previously had occasion to address the issue, we note the absurd result that would occur if the patient's heirs or next of kin could not waive the physician-patient privilege in the context of a hearing on the need to appoint a conservator, held pursuant to D.C. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Turner v. American Security & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1980Turner v. American Security & Trust Co., 213 U.S. 257 , 29 S.Ct. 420 , 53 L.Ed. 788 (1909) (affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reported at 29 App.D.C. 460 (1907)). [15] While this court has not previously had occasion to address the issue, we note the absurd result that would occur if the patient's heirs or next of kin could not waive the physician-patient privilege in the context of a hearing on the need to appoint a conservator, held pursuant to D.C. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.