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.
13 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1900–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts 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 |
|---|---|---|
Petitions of the Department of Social Services to Dispense With Consent to Adoptiongreen2 sentences2002L. c. 233, § 20B, to object to psychiatrist’s testimony where “neither the child’s attorney nor the guardian ad litem chose to exercise the privilege”); Petitions of the Dep’t of Social Servs. to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. 279 , 290 n.21 (1987) (“Because the [§ 20B] privilege belongs to the patient, it appears that the burden should be on the patient to assert the privilege”); Commonwealth v. Souther, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 219, 223 (1991) (§ 20B privilege “is to be exercised by the refusal of the patient to disclose or by the patient’s preventing a witness from disclosing the com 1991See Usen v. Usen, 359 Mass. 453, 456-457 (1971); Petitions of the Dept. of Social Servs. to Dispense With Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. 279 , 290 n.21 (1987); Commonwealth v. Berrio, 407 Mass. 37, 43 (1990); Commonwealth v. Rexach, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 919, 920-921 (1985); Fox, Psychotherapy and Legal Privilege, 53 Mass. L.Q. 307, 308 (1968). | 1 | 2 |
Robart v. Alamo Rent-a-Car, LLCgreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., Robart, 19 Mass. L. | 1 | 1 |
Price v. County of San Diegogreen1 sentence2020See e.g., Price v. City of San Diego, 165 F.R.D. 614, 623 (S.D. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Southergreen1 sentence2002L. c. 233, § 20B, to object to psychiatrist’s testimony where “neither the child’s attorney nor the guardian ad litem chose to exercise the privilege”); Petitions of the Dep’t of Social Servs. to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. 279 , 290 n.21 (1987) (“Because the [§ 20B] privilege belongs to the patient, it appears that the burden should be on the patient to assert the privilege”); Commonwealth v. Souther, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 219, 223 (1991) (§ 20B privilege “is to be exercised by the refusal of the patient to disclose or by the patient’s preventing a witness from disclosing the com | 1 | 1 |
Adoption of Abigailgreen1 sentence2002L. c. 233, § 20B, to object to psychiatrist’s testimony where “neither the child’s attorney nor the guardian ad litem chose to exercise the privilege”); Petitions of the Dep’t of Social Servs. to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. 279 , 290 n.21 (1987) (“Because the [§ 20B] privilege belongs to the patient, it appears that the burden should be on the patient to assert the privilege”); Commonwealth v. Souther, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 219, 223 (1991) (§ 20B privilege “is to be exercised by the refusal of the patient to disclose or by the patient’s preventing a witness from disclosing the com | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fitzgeraldgreen1 sentence2000Subsequent decisions by two New York trial courts considering whether a privilege extended to communications with adult children or to a non-parent have resulted in varying results as to who is the holder of the privilege, who qualifies as a child, and who qualifies as a “parent.” See People v. Fitzgerald, 101 Misc. 2d 712, 713-717 (N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
In re Ryangreen1 sentence2000County Ct. 1979) (citing extensively to A & M case and holding that father of twenty-three year old son could not be compelled to testify as to conversation he had with son two days after the alleged crime, and further holding that both parent and child were required to waive privilege before father could testify); Matter of Ryan, 123 Misc. 2d 854, 855 (N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
MacDonald v. MacDonaldgreen1 sentence1995Bermingham v. Thomas, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 742, 742 (rescript) (1975). | 1 | 1 |
People v. District Court in & for the City & County of Denvergreen1 sentence1993See" People v. *179 District Court, 719 P.2d 722 , 727 & n.,3 (Colo. 1986) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 529 Pa. 268, 285 , cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Robert Oberkoettergreen2 sentences1992In Perlman , the First Circuit pointed out, there was “no relation between the holder of the privilege and the person who could get a review of the contested order by defying it and risking contempt proceedings” (emphasis added), In re Oberkoetter, 612 F.2d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 1980), and so Perlman was truly “powerless to avert the mischief of the order.” Id., quoting Perlman, supra at 13 . 1992In Perlman , the First Circuit pointed out, there was “no relation between the holder of the privilege and the person who could get a review of the contested order by defying it and risking contempt proceedings” (emphasis added), In re Oberkoetter, 612 F.2d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 1980), and so Perlman was truly “powerless to avert the mischief of the order.” Id., quoting Perlman, supra at 13 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Berriogreen1 sentence1991See Usen v. Usen, 359 Mass. 453, 456-457 (1971); Petitions of the Dept. of Social Servs. to Dispense With Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. 279 , 290 n.21 (1987); Commonwealth v. Berrio, 407 Mass. 37, 43 (1990); Commonwealth v. Rexach, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 919, 920-921 (1985); Fox, Psychotherapy and Legal Privilege, 53 Mass. L.Q. 307, 308 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Rexachgreen1 sentence1991See Usen v. Usen, 359 Mass. 453, 456-457 (1971); Petitions of the Dept. of Social Servs. to Dispense With Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. 279 , 290 n.21 (1987); Commonwealth v. Berrio, 407 Mass. 37, 43 (1990); Commonwealth v. Rexach, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 919, 920-921 (1985); Fox, Psychotherapy and Legal Privilege, 53 Mass. L.Q. 307, 308 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Usen v. Usengreen1 sentence1991See Usen v. Usen, 359 Mass. 453, 456-457 (1971); Petitions of the Dept. of Social Servs. to Dispense With Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. 279 , 290 n.21 (1987); Commonwealth v. Berrio, 407 Mass. 37, 43 (1990); Commonwealth v. Rexach, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 919, 920-921 (1985); Fox, Psychotherapy and Legal Privilege, 53 Mass. L.Q. 307, 308 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Oliveira
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2003Id. at 340 . | 2 | 2003–2009 |
Commonwealth v. Bishop
green
1 sentence2004The judge’s insistence on “compliance with the Bishop-Fuller protocol” necessarily involves rule 17 (a) (2) because the protocol is not implicated until the holder of the privilege or the keeper of the records asserts a privilege in response to an order for production and refuses to produce the records, see Commonwealth v. Bishop, supra at 181 , or files a motion to quash based on a claim of privilege. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Commonwealth v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1993See" People v. *179 District Court, 719 P.2d 722 , 727 & n.,3 (Colo. 1986) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 529 Pa. 268, 285 , cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Perlman v. United States
green
1 sentence1992In Perlman , the First Circuit pointed out, there was “no relation between the holder of the privilege and the person who could get a review of the contested order by defying it and risking contempt proceedings” (emphasis added), In re Oberkoetter, 612 F.2d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 1980), and so Perlman was truly “powerless to avert the mischief of the order.” Id., quoting Perlman, supra at 13 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
cluster 362997
green
1 sentence1992Other Federal circuits have similarly denied a third-party stakeholder’s request to appeal when the “target of the disclosure order is both subject to the control of the person or entity asserting the privilege and is a participant in the relationship out of which the privilege emerges.” National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d 174 , 180 n.7 (2d Cir. 1979). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
City of Boston v. Turner
green
1 sentence1932Boston v. Turner, 201 Mass. 190, 195 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Williams v. Baker
neutral
1 sentence1925Williams v. Baker, 209 Mass. 92 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Spofford v. Kirk
green
1 sentence1900In Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U. S. 484 , it was held that a duly accepted order given by the holder of a claim against the United States in favor of a third person, upon one whom he had employed to collect the claim, and afterwards transferred to a purchaser for value, who took it in good faith, could not be enforced against the drawer upon the fund. | 1 | 1900–1900 |
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.