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.
12 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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. Hansengreen2 sentences2013ORS 419B.040(1) provides: “In the case of abuse of a child, * * * the psychotherapist-patient privilege * * * shall not be a ground for excluding evidence regarding a child’s abuse, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.010 to 419B.050.” 2 (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court addressed the scope of the ORS 419B.040(1) exception to privilege in State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169 , 743 P2d 157 , rev den, 332 Or 559 (1987), 3 and we addressed the exception, in light of Hansen, in State v. Reed, 173 Or App 185 , 21 P3d 137 (2001). 2013ORS 419B.040(1) provides: “In the case of abuse of a child, * * * the psychotherapist-patient privilege * * * shall not be a ground for excluding evidence regarding a child’s abuse, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.010 to 419B.050.” 2 (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court addressed the scope of the ORS 419B.040(1) exception to privilege in State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169 , 743 P2d 157 , rev den, 332 Or 559 (1987), 3 and we addressed the exception, in light of Hansen, in State v. Reed, 173 Or App 185 , 21 P3d 137 (2001). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Langleygreen2 sentences2011See State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 263 , 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh’d to on recons, 318 Or 28 , 861 P2d 1012 (1993) (reviewing, for errors of law, the trial court’s determination that the psychotherapist-patient privilege did not apply). 7 *682 Although Sawyer invoked the privilege under Article I, section 12, as well as the Fifth Amendment, both parties have conflated their analyses of the two constitutional provisions, with neither proposing a distinct analysis under Article I, section 12, or arguing against our adoption of the federal standard. 2011See State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 263 , 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh’d to on recons, 318 Or 28 , 861 P2d 1012 (1993) (reviewing, for errors of law, the trial court’s determination that the psychotherapist-patient privilege did not apply). 7 *682 Although Sawyer invoked the privilege under Article I, section 12, as well as the Fifth Amendment, both parties have conflated their analyses of the two constitutional provisions, with neither proposing a distinct analysis under Article I, section 12, or arguing against our adoption of the federal standard. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langleygreen2 sentences2011See State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 263 , 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh’d to on recons, 318 Or 28 , 861 P2d 1012 (1993) (reviewing, for errors of law, the trial court’s determination that the psychotherapist-patient privilege did not apply). 7 *682 Although Sawyer invoked the privilege under Article I, section 12, as well as the Fifth Amendment, both parties have conflated their analyses of the two constitutional provisions, with neither proposing a distinct analysis under Article I, section 12, or arguing against our adoption of the federal standard. 2011See State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 263 , 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh’d to on recons, 318 Or 28 , 861 P2d 1012 (1993) (reviewing, for errors of law, the trial court’s determination that the psychotherapist-patient privilege did not apply). 7 *682 Although Sawyer invoked the privilege under Article I, section 12, as well as the Fifth Amendment, both parties have conflated their analyses of the two constitutional provisions, with neither proposing a distinct analysis under Article I, section 12, or arguing against our adoption of the federal standard. | 1 | 1 |
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industriesgreen2 sentences2005See PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-11 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (first level of analysis in interpreting a statute includes text and context). 2005See PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-11 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (first level of analysis in interpreting a statute includes text and context). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langleygreen1 sentence2002See Langley, 331 Or at 450-51 (holding that counsel’s failure to object waived the defendant’s privacy interest, if any, under the Fourteenth Amendment, as embodied in the psychotherapist-patient privilege). | 1 | 1 |
Allred v. Stategreen2 sentences1985The psychotherapist-patient privilege “necessarily includes communications made in the course of diagnostic interviews and examinations which might reasonably lead to psychotherapy.” Allred v. State, 554 P2d 411, 420 (Alaska 1976). 1985The psychotherapist-patient privilege “necessarily includes communications made in the course of diagnostic interviews and examinations which might reasonably lead to psychotherapy.” Allred v. State, 554 P2d 411, 420 (Alaska 1976). | 1 | 1 |
Groff v. State Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences1984See Groff v. S.I.A.C., 246 Or. 557 , 426 P.2d 738 (1967); State ex rel. 1984See Groff v. S.I.A.C., 246 Or. 557 , 426 P.2d 738 (1967); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Reed
green
2 sentences2013ORS 419B.040(1) provides: “In the case of abuse of a child, * * * the psychotherapist-patient privilege * * * shall not be a ground for excluding evidence regarding a child’s abuse, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.010 to 419B.050.” 2 (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court addressed the scope of the ORS 419B.040(1) exception to privilege in State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169 , 743 P2d 157 , rev den, 332 Or 559 (1987), 3 and we addressed the exception, in light of Hansen, in State v. Reed, 173 Or App 185 , 21 P3d 137 (2001). 2013ORS 419B.040(1) provides: “In the case of abuse of a child, * * * the psychotherapist-patient privilege * * * shall not be a ground for excluding evidence regarding a child’s abuse, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.010 to 419B.050.” 2 (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court addressed the scope of the ORS 419B.040(1) exception to privilege in State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169 , 743 P2d 157 , rev den, 332 Or 559 (1987), 3 and we addressed the exception, in light of Hansen, in State v. Reed, 173 Or App 185 , 21 P3d 137 (2001). | 2 | 2003–2013 |
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Ashley
green
2 sentences1992Dept. v. Ashley, 312 Or 169 , 818 P2d 1270 (1991), the Supreme Court affirmed that “the psychotherapist-patient privilege [in OEC 504] does not apply to communications made during the diagnosis or treatment of drug dependency when that is the specific purpose of the diagnosis or treatment.” 312 Or at 180 . 1992Dept. v. Ashley, 312 Or 169 , 818 P2d 1270 (1991), the Supreme Court affirmed that “the psychotherapist-patient privilege [in OEC 504] does not apply to communications made during the diagnosis or treatment of drug dependency when that is the specific purpose of the diagnosis or treatment.” 312 Or at 180 . | 2 | 1991–1992 |
State v. Hansen
green
2 sentences2001State v. Hansen, 82 Or App 178 , 728 P2d 538 (1986). 10 The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege now codified in ORS 419B.040(l)n applied equally to both evidence of abuse and exculpatory evidence. 2001State v. Hansen, 82 Or App 178 , 728 P2d 538 (1986). 10 The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege now codified in ORS 419B.040(l)n applied equally to both evidence of abuse and exculpatory evidence. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Suttles
green
1 sentence1987State v. Suttles, 287 Or 15, 21-32 , 597 P2d 786 (1979). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences1987The state contends that evidence that would tend to exculpate the defendant would not further the policy stated in ORS 418.745 to “prevent further abuse [and] safeguard and enhance the welfare of abused children.” The state also contends that limiting *179 the exception stated in ORS 418.775(1) to proof of abuse is consistent with the purpose of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, which is to assist the treatment of mental and emotional problems, see State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 208-09 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), because proof of abuse furthers the treatment of the child, while proof that the abu 1987The state contends that evidence that would tend to exculpate the defendant would not further the policy stated in ORS 418.745 to “prevent further abuse [and] safeguard and enhance the welfare of abused children.” The state also contends that limiting *179 the exception stated in ORS 418.775(1) to proof of abuse is consistent with the purpose of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, which is to assist the treatment of mental and emotional problems, see State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 208-09 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), because proof of abuse furthers the treatment of the child, while proof that the abu | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Suttles
green
1 sentence1987State v. Suttles, 287 Or 15, 21-32 , 597 P2d 786 (1979). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Hudson
green
1 sentence1986The common law rule would resolve that dilemma. 3 The common law rule is “that a death was not a homicide unless it resulted within a year and a day from the time of the act which was alleged to have caused it.” State v. Hudson, supra, 56 Or App at 464 . 4 ORS 418.775(1) provides: “In the case of abuse of a child, as defined in ORS 418.740, the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the physician-patient privilege, the privileges extended to nurses, to staff members of schools and to registered clinical social workers and the husband-wife privilege created by ORS 40.230 to 40.255 shall not be a gr | 1 | 1986–1986 |
United States v. Nixon
green
2 sentences1984In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 , 94 S.Ct. *680 3090, 3108, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), the Supreme Court stated: "Whatever their origins, these exceptions to the demand for every man's evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth." In asserting the psychotherapist-patient privilege, defendant had the burden to show that both he and the nature of the evidence offered by the state were within the ambit of OEC 504. 1984In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 , 94 S.Ct. *680 3090, 3108, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), the Supreme Court stated: "Whatever their origins, these exceptions to the demand for every man's evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth." In asserting the psychotherapist-patient privilege, defendant had the burden to show that both he and the nature of the evidence offered by the state were within the ambit of OEC 504. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.