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.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
V.B.T. v. Family Services of Western Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2004V.B.T v. Family Services of Western Pennsylvania, 705 A.2d 1325, 1334 (Pa. Super. 1998), aff’d, 556 Pa. 430 , 728 A.2d 953 (1999). 2000In the case of each qualified privilege, the Superior Court concluded that the interests protected by the privilege outweigh those of a plaintiff seeking money damages in a negligence action. 705 A.2d at 1327 . | 1 | 2 |
Thomas v. Pagegreen2 sentences2017See Thomas v. Page, 361 Ill.App.3d 484 , 297 Ill.Dec. 400 , 837 N.E.2d 483, 493 (2005); Office of Citizens’ Aide/Ombudsman v. Edwards, 825 N.W.2d 8, 19 (Iowa 2012); In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 972 N.E.2d at 1033 . 2017See Thomas v. Page, 361 Ill.App.3d 484 , 297 Ill.Dec. 400 , 837 N.E.2d 483, 493 (2005); Office of Citizens’ Aide/Ombudsman v. Edwards, 825 N.W.2d 8, 19 (Iowa 2012); In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 972 N.E.2d at 1033 . | 1 | 1 |
Office of Citizens' Aide/Ombudsman v. Deb Edwards and Iowa Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2017See Thomas v. Page, 361 Ill.App.3d 484 , 297 Ill.Dec. 400 , 837 N.E.2d 483, 493 (2005); Office of Citizens’ Aide/Ombudsman v. Edwards, 825 N.W.2d 8, 19 (Iowa 2012); In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 972 N.E.2d at 1033 . | 1 | 1 |
Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc.green2 sentences2006See In re Subpoena No. 22, 709 A.2d at 391 (finding a narrow exception qualifying the privilege, after the client’s death, when necessaiy as part of a criminal investigation into the client’s death, enforcement of the privilege in this context being contrary to the client’s interests); Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, 554 Pa. 209, 231-32 , 720 A.2d 1032, 1043 (1999) (“[W]e find that inPennsylvania, based upon the special relationship between a mental health professional and his patient, when the patient has communicated to the professional a specific and immediate threat o 2006See In re Subpoena No. 22, 709 A.2d at 391 (finding a narrow exception qualifying the privilege, after the client’s death, when necessaiy as part of a criminal investigation into the client’s death, enforcement of the privilege in this context being contrary to the client’s interests); Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, 554 Pa. 209, 231-32 , 720 A.2d 1032, 1043 (1999) (“[W]e find that inPennsylvania, based upon the special relationship between a mental health professional and his patient, when the patient has communicated to the professional a specific and immediate threat o | 1 | 1 |
In Re Subpoena No. 22.green1 sentence2006See In re Subpoena No. 22, 709 A.2d at 391 (finding a narrow exception qualifying the privilege, after the client’s death, when necessaiy as part of a criminal investigation into the client’s death, enforcement of the privilege in this context being contrary to the client’s interests); Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, 554 Pa. 209, 231-32 , 720 A.2d 1032, 1043 (1999) (“[W]e find that inPennsylvania, based upon the special relationship between a mental health professional and his patient, when the patient has communicated to the professional a specific and immediate threat o | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fisher v. United States
green
2 sentences2022As the plurality in McAleer II explained, “Where the interests protected by the privilege conflict with weightier obligations, the former must yield to the latter.” Id. at 426 . 2022As the plurality in McAleer II explained, “Where the interests protected by the privilege conflict with weightier obligations, the former must yield to the latter.” Id. at 426 . | 3 | 2022–2022 |
In re the Enforcement of a Subpoena
green
1 sentence2017See Thomas v. Page, 361 Ill.App.3d 484 , 297 Ill.Dec. 400 , 837 N.E.2d 483, 493 (2005); Office of Citizens’ Aide/Ombudsman v. Edwards, 825 N.W.2d 8, 19 (Iowa 2012); In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 972 N.E.2d at 1033 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
V.B.T. v. Family Services of Western Pennsylvania
green
1 sentence2004V.B.T v. Family Services of Western Pennsylvania, 705 A.2d 1325, 1334 (Pa. Super. 1998), aff’d, 556 Pa. 430 , 728 A.2d 953 (1999). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Vbt v. Family Services of Western Pa
green
1 sentence2004V.B.T v. Family Services of Western Pennsylvania, 705 A.2d 1325, 1334 (Pa. Super. 1998), aff’d, 556 Pa. 430 , 728 A.2d 953 (1999). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Commonwealth v. Ludwig
green
2 sentences1992Id. 366 Pa.Super. at 364 , 531 A.2d at 460 . 5 We note that under this test, only two of the three prongs are met. 1992Id. 366 Pa.Super. at 364 , 531 A.2d at 460 . 5 We note that under this test, only two of the three prongs are met. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Commonwealth v. Ludwig
green
1 sentence1992Id. 366 Pa.Super. at 364 , 531 A.2d at 460 . 5 We note that under this test, only two of the three prongs are met. | 1 | 1992–1992 |