8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. District Court, Second Judicial District, City & County of Denvergreen2 sentences1997See also Clark v. District Court, 668 P.2d 3 (Colo.1983); B.B. v. People, supra. Reviewing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that psychotherapy was not practiced by the psychologist and, therefore, that the psychologist-client privilege does not apply in this case. 1990In Clark v. District Court, 668 P.2d 3 (Colo.1983), we discussed the circumstances under which the physician-patient privilege and the psychologist-client privilege may be waived. | 3 | 4 |
People v. District Court in & for the City & County of Denvergreen2 sentences1997The purpose of the psychologist-client privilege is identical to that of the physician-patient privilege, namely, to “enhance the effective diagnosis and treatment of illness by protecting the patient from the embarrassment and humiliation that might be caused by the [psychologist’s] disclosure of information imparted to him by the patient during the course of a consultation for purposes of [psychological] treatment.” People v. District Court, 719 P.2d 722, 724 (Colo.1986). 1996In view of the fact that the psychologist-client privilege is also designed to encourage a patient to seek counseling with the assurance that all communications will be kept confidential, see People v. District Court, 719 P.2d at 726 , a conclusion that section 19-3-311 negates the psychologist-client privilege for post-report therapeutic communication would be inconsistent with the legislature’s intent to shield a child victim from further harm. | 2 | 3 |
Dill v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2004See Dill v. People, 927 P.2d 1315 (Colo.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Rauschenberger v. Radetskygreen1 sentence1996See generally Rauschenberger v. Radetsky, supra. Moreover, respondent’s construction of § 13—90—107(1)(g) would mean that those professionals with the most recent and certainly the most extensive information regarding a person’s mental condition would be unable to share this information with the court in its attempt to determine whether the needs of the person require certification for treatment or discharge therefrom. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Dill
green
2 sentences1996The court of appeals also held that section 19-3-311(1), 8B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.), which abrogates the psychologist-client privilege as to communications between a victim and a psychologist that are the basis for a required report of child abuse under section 19-3-304, 8B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.), “does not concern communications relating to ongoing treatment of the victim.” Dill, 904 P.2d at 1371 . 1996The court of appeals also held that section 19-3-311(1), 8B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.), which abrogates the psychologist-client privilege as to communications between a victim and a psychologist that are the basis for a required report of child abuse under section 19-3-304, 8B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.), “does not concern communications relating to ongoing treatment of the victim.” Dill, 904 P.2d at 1371 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. District Court, County of Adams
green
2 sentences1996The record reveals that the probate court determined that the exception to § 13-90-107(1)(g) set forth in People v. District Court, supra, applied and precluded respondent from asserting the psychologist-client privilege at the hearing. 1996Accordingly, the probate court did not err in ruling that the exception to § 13-90-107(1)(g) set- forth in People v. District Court, supra, was applicable here to preclude respondent’s assertion of the psychologist-client privilege. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
B.B. v. People
green
2 sentences1993As in B.B., information obtained by Dr. Speigle "was not for purposes of diagnosing or treating [the mother] but rather to assist [the mother] in pending litigation, and thus was not within the psychologist-client privilege." B.B., 785 P.2d at 140 . 1993As in B.B., information obtained by Dr. Speigle “was not for purposes of diagnosing or treating [the mother] but rather to assist [the mother] in pending litigation, and thus was not within the psychologist-client privilege.” B.B., 785 P.2d at 140 . | 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.