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.
11 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mathis v. Hilderbrandgreen2 sentences2013See Mathis v. Hilderbrand, 416 P.2d 8, 8-10 (Alaska 1966) (reviewing de novo whether plaintiff waived the physician-patient privilege by filing suit for personal injury). 3 . 1987Said waiver may specifically note that physicians are free to confer with defense counsel but are not compelled to do so.” We subsequently granted Lang-don’s petition for review of Judge Souter’s order. 2 II In Mathis v. Hilderbrand, 416 P.2d 8, 10 (Alaska 1966), we first recognized the rule that the commencement of an action for personal injuries constitutes a waiver by the plaintiff of the physician-patient privilege in that action. | 3 | 5 |
Trans-World Investments v. Drobnygreen2 sentences2013Cf. Trans-World Invs. v. Drobny, 554 P.2d 1148, 1151 (Alaska 1976) ("[Wle hold that the filing of a personal injury action waives the physician-patient privilege as to all information concerning the health and medical history relevant to the matters which the plaintiff has put in issue.") (citing 8 Jon H. 2002Langdon v. Champion, 745 P.2d 1371, 1373 (Alaska 1987); see also Trans-World Investments v. Drobny, 554 P.2d 1148, 1151 (Alaska 1976) (stating "we hold that the filing of a personal injury action waives the physician-patient privilege as to all information concerning the health and medical history relevant to the matters which the plaintiff has put in issue."). | 3 | 5 |
Langdon v. Championgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Langdon v. Champion, 745 P.2d 1371, 1372-73 (Alaska 1987) (restating rule that commencement of action for personal injuries constitutes plaintiff's waiver of physician-patient privilege); Trans-World Investments v. Drobny, 554 P.2d 1148, 1151 (Alaska 1976) (holding “that the filing of a personal injury action waives the physician-patient privilege as to all information concerning the health and medical history relevant to the matters which the plaintiff has put in issue.”). 50 .DeNardo’s claims that the superior court erred in denying his discovery motions are moot: Because we affir 2002Langdon v. Champion, 745 P.2d 1371, 1373 (Alaska 1987); see also Trans-World Investments v. Drobny, 554 P.2d 1148, 1151 (Alaska 1976) (stating "we hold that the filing of a personal injury action waives the physician-patient privilege as to all information concerning the health and medical history relevant to the matters which the plaintiff has put in issue."). | 2 | 2 |
Brooks v. Brooksgreen1 sentence2013Cf. Langdon v. Champion, 752 P.2d 999, 1001 (Alaska 1988) (quoting Brooks v. Brooks, 733 P.2d 1044, 1055 (Alaska 1987)) (citing Walsh v. Emerick, 611 P.2d 28, 30 (Alaska 1980). 4 . 836 P.2d 896, 914 (Alaska 1991) (construing AS 22.10.020(i) to determine the remedies available for violations of AS 18.80). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Alaska State Department of Fish & Gamegreen1 sentence2013Cf. Langdon v. Champion, 752 P.2d 999, 1001 (Alaska 1988) (quoting Brooks v. Brooks, 733 P.2d 1044, 1055 (Alaska 1987)) (citing Walsh v. Emerick, 611 P.2d 28, 30 (Alaska 1980). 4 . 836 P.2d 896, 914 (Alaska 1991) (construing AS 22.10.020(i) to determine the remedies available for violations of AS 18.80). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Langdon v. Championgreen1 sentence2013Cf. Langdon v. Champion, 752 P.2d 999, 1001 (Alaska 1988) (quoting Brooks v. Brooks, 733 P.2d 1044, 1055 (Alaska 1987)) (citing Walsh v. Emerick, 611 P.2d 28, 30 (Alaska 1980). 4 . 836 P.2d 896, 914 (Alaska 1991) (construing AS 22.10.020(i) to determine the remedies available for violations of AS 18.80). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Walsh v. Emerickgreen1 sentence2013Cf. Langdon v. Champion, 752 P.2d 999, 1001 (Alaska 1988) (quoting Brooks v. Brooks, 733 P.2d 1044, 1055 (Alaska 1987)) (citing Walsh v. Emerick, 611 P.2d 28, 30 (Alaska 1980). 4 . 836 P.2d 896, 914 (Alaska 1991) (construing AS 22.10.020(i) to determine the remedies available for violations of AS 18.80). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Falco v. Institute of Livinggreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Falco v. Institute of Living, 254 Conn. 321 , 757 A.2d 571, 576 (2000) (holding that the identity of the patient attacking the plaintiff was privileged under the psychiatrist-patient privilege statute); Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp., 460 Mich. 26 , 594 N.W.2d 455, 460 (1999) (holding that the identity of the patient was protected by the physician-patient privilege statute). . 2012See, e.g., Falco v. Institute of Living, 254 Conn. 321 , 757 A.2d 571, 576 (2000) (holding that the identity of the patient attacking the plaintiff was privileged under the psychiatrist-patient privilege statute); Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp., 460 Mich. 26 , 594 N.W.2d 455, 460 (1999) (holding that the identity of the patient was protected by the physician-patient privilege statute). . | 1 | 1 |
Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp.green2 sentences2012See, e.g., Falco v. Institute of Living, 254 Conn. 321 , 757 A.2d 571, 576 (2000) (holding that the identity of the patient attacking the plaintiff was privileged under the psychiatrist-patient privilege statute); Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp., 460 Mich. 26 , 594 N.W.2d 455, 460 (1999) (holding that the identity of the patient was protected by the physician-patient privilege statute). . 2012See, e.g., Falco v. Institute of Living, 254 Conn. 321 , 757 A.2d 571, 576 (2000) (holding that the identity of the patient attacking the plaintiff was privileged under the psychiatrist-patient privilege statute); Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp., 460 Mich. 26 , 594 N.W.2d 455, 460 (1999) (holding that the identity of the patient was protected by the physician-patient privilege statute). . | 1 | 1 |
Moudy v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2012In Moudy v. Superior Court, 964 P.2d 469, 471 (Alaska App.1998), this Court held that the attorney-client privilege does not normally protect the fact that a person has consulted an attorney-as distinct from the confidential communications between attorney and client concerning the client's need for legal services, and the attorney's ensuing advice to the client. 1 As explained in McCormick on Evidence, § 100, many jurisdictions follow this same rule with regard to the physician-patient privilege and the psychotherapist-patient privilege-although there is some contrary authority. 2 And, as exp | 1 | 1 |
Nickels v. Napolilligreen1 sentence2002"A claim is moot 'if the party bringing the action would not be entitled to any relief even if they prevail[ed].' " Nickels v. Napolilli, 29 P.3d 242, 254, n. 60 (Alaska 2001) (alterations in original) (quoting Maynard v. State Farm Mut. | 1 | 1 |
Continental Insurance Companies v. Bayless & Roberts, Inc.green1 sentence1976Binding further as part of our definition of relevancy, within the context of discovery, is Civil Rule 26(b) (1), which provides in part: It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. [13] We feel this method is preferable to the more formal method utilized in Garner v. Ford Motor Co., 61 F.R.D. 22 (D.C.Alaska 1973). [14] Continental Insurance Companies v. Bayless and Roberts, Inc., 548 P.2d 398, 411 (Alaska 1975). [15] We note that in each of thes | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. Palmergreen1 sentence1968Compare our disposition of the physician-patient privilege claim in Mathis v. Hilderbrand, 416 P.2d 8 (Alaska 1966). 25 . 29 F.Supp. 585, 586 (E.D.N.Y.1939), aff’d. 113 F.2d 721 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 680 , 61 S.Ct. 50 , 85 L.Ed. 438 (1940). 26 . 32 F.Supp. 21, 23 (W.D.Pa.1940). 27 . | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. Palmergreen1 sentence1968Compare our disposition of the physician-patient privilege claim in Mathis v. Hilderbrand, 416 P.2d 8 (Alaska 1966). 25 . 29 F.Supp. 585, 586 (E.D.N.Y.1939), aff’d. 113 F.2d 721 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 680 , 61 S.Ct. 50 , 85 L.Ed. 438 (1940). 26 . 32 F.Supp. 21, 23 (W.D.Pa.1940). 27 . | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport Corporationgreen1 sentence1968Compare our disposition of the physician-patient privilege claim in Mathis v. Hilderbrand, 416 P.2d 8 (Alaska 1966). 25 . 29 F.Supp. 585, 586 (E.D.N.Y.1939), aff’d. 113 F.2d 721 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 680 , 61 S.Ct. 50 , 85 L.Ed. 438 (1940). 26 . 32 F.Supp. 21, 23 (W.D.Pa.1940). 27 . | 1 | 1 |
Walsh v. Reynolds Metals Co.green1 sentence1968See also Walsh v. Reynolds Metals Co., 15 F.R.D. 376 (D.N.J.1954); United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, 15 F.R.D. 224 (S.D.Cal.1953); cf., 4 J. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Keller v. Commissionergreen1 sentence1968Compare our disposition of the physician-patient privilege claim in Mathis v. Hilderbrand, 416 P.2d 8 (Alaska 1966). 25 . 29 F.Supp. 585, 586 (E.D.N.Y.1939), aff’d. 113 F.2d 721 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 680 , 61 S.Ct. 50 , 85 L.Ed. 438 (1940). 26 . 32 F.Supp. 21, 23 (W.D.Pa.1940). 27 . | 1 | 1 |
Porter-Wadley Lumber Co. v. Baileygreen1 sentence1968Compare our disposition of the physician-patient privilege claim in Mathis v. Hilderbrand, 416 P.2d 8 (Alaska 1966). 25 . 29 F.Supp. 585, 586 (E.D.N.Y.1939), aff’d. 113 F.2d 721 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 680 , 61 S.Ct. 50 , 85 L.Ed. 438 (1940). 26 . 32 F.Supp. 21, 23 (W.D.Pa.1940). 27 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Collins v. Bair
green
2 sentences2013Wicmors Evipence § 2389 (McNaughton rev.1961); Collins v. Bair, 256 Ind. 230 , 268 N.E.2d 95 (1971)). 12 . 2013Wicmors Evipence § 2389 (McNaughton rev.1961); Collins v. Bair, 256 Ind. 230 , 268 N.E.2d 95 (1971)). 12 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ex Parte Abell
green
1 sentence2012Footnote 6 of McCormick lists the following decisions: Ex parte Abell, 613 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.1981) (holding that the privilege precluded the disclosure of the names of a psychiatrist's patients); Rudnick v. Superior Court of Kern County, 11 Cal.3d 924 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 523 P.2d 643 (1974) (holding that a patient's identity is privileged if the context of the disclosure will reveal the nature of the patient's illness); Hetter v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 110 Nev. 513 , 874 P.2d 762 (1994) (holding that the names of a surgeon's patients may be protected if nature of the medical problem o | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Rudnick v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2012Footnote 6 of McCormick lists the following decisions: Ex parte Abell, 613 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.1981) (holding that the privilege precluded the disclosure of the names of a psychiatrist's patients); Rudnick v. Superior Court of Kern County, 11 Cal.3d 924 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 523 P.2d 643 (1974) (holding that a patient's identity is privileged if the context of the disclosure will reveal the nature of the patient's illness); Hetter v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 110 Nev. 513 , 874 P.2d 762 (1994) (holding that the names of a surgeon's patients may be protected if nature of the medical problem o 2012Footnote 6 of McCormick lists the following decisions: Ex parte Abell, 613 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.1981) (holding that the privilege precluded the disclosure of the names of a psychiatrist's patients); Rudnick v. Superior Court of Kern County, 11 Cal.3d 924 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 523 P.2d 643 (1974) (holding that a patient's identity is privileged if the context of the disclosure will reveal the nature of the patient's illness); Hetter v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 110 Nev. 513 , 874 P.2d 762 (1994) (holding that the names of a surgeon's patients may be protected if nature of the medical problem o | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Falcon v. Alaska Public Offices Commission
green
1 sentence2012In Moudy v. Superior Court, 964 P.2d 469, 471 (Alaska App.1998), this Court held that the attorney-client privilege does not normally protect the fact that a person has consulted an attorney-as distinct from the confidential communications between attorney and client concerning the client's need for legal services, and the attorney's ensuing advice to the client. 1 As explained in McCormick on Evidence, § 100, many jurisdictions follow this same rule with regard to the physician-patient privilege and the psychotherapist-patient privilege-although there is some contrary authority. 2 And, as exp | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hetter v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
green
2 sentences2012Footnote 6 of McCormick lists the following decisions: Ex parte Abell, 613 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.1981) (holding that the privilege precluded the disclosure of the names of a psychiatrist's patients); Rudnick v. Superior Court of Kern County, 11 Cal.3d 924 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 523 P.2d 643 (1974) (holding that a patient's identity is privileged if the context of the disclosure will reveal the nature of the patient's illness); Hetter v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 110 Nev. 513 , 874 P.2d 762 (1994) (holding that the names of a surgeon's patients may be protected if nature of the medical problem o 2012Footnote 6 of McCormick lists the following decisions: Ex parte Abell, 613 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.1981) (holding that the privilege precluded the disclosure of the names of a psychiatrist's patients); Rudnick v. Superior Court of Kern County, 11 Cal.3d 924 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 523 P.2d 643 (1974) (holding that a patient's identity is privileged if the context of the disclosure will reveal the nature of the patient's illness); Hetter v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 110 Nev. 513 , 874 P.2d 762 (1994) (holding that the names of a surgeon's patients may be protected if nature of the medical problem o | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Arctic Motor Freight, Inc. v. Stover
green
2 sentences1987Less than a year later we again took up the issue of the waiver of the physician-patient privilege in Arctic Motor Freight v. Stover, 571 P.2d 1006 (Alaska 1977), because of conflicting lower court interpretations of Drobny. 3 571 P.2d at 1007 . 1987Less than a year later we again took up the issue of the waiver of the physician-patient privilege in Arctic Motor Freight v. Stover, 571 P.2d 1006 (Alaska 1977), because of conflicting lower court interpretations of Drobny. 3 571 P.2d at 1007 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Ingram v. State
green
1 sentence1977Ingram v. State, 450 P.2d 161 (Alaska 1969). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Garner v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1976Binding further as part of our definition of relevancy, within the context of discovery, is Civil Rule 26(b) (1), which provides in part: It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. [13] We feel this method is preferable to the more formal method utilized in Garner v. Ford Motor Co., 61 F.R.D. 22 (D.C.Alaska 1973). [14] Continental Insurance Companies v. Bayless and Roberts, Inc., 548 P.2d 398, 411 (Alaska 1975). [15] We note that in each of thes | 1 | 1976–1976 |
In Re Lifschutz
green
2 sentences1976Id. at 200, n. 78. [1] See 8 Wigmore, § 2386, at 851 (McNaughton Revision 1961) relating to the physician-patient privilege. [2] In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal.3d 415 , 85 Cal. Rptr. 829 , 467 P.2d 557 (1970); Annot., 44 A.L.R.3d 24 , 55-56 (1972). 1976Id. at 200, n. 78. [1] See 8 Wigmore, § 2386, at 851 (McNaughton Revision 1961) relating to the physician-patient privilege. [2] In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal.3d 415 , 85 Cal. Rptr. 829 , 467 P.2d 557 (1970); Annot., 44 A.L.R.3d 24 , 55-56 (1972). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
United States v. Certain Parcels of Land
green
1 sentence1968See also Walsh v. Reynolds Metals Co., 15 F.R.D. 376 (D.N.J.1954); United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, 15 F.R.D. 224 (S.D.Cal.1953); cf., 4 J. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.