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.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scull v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017(Scull v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 784, 788, fn. 1 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 24 ] (Scull), citing Evid. 2017(Scull v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 784, 788, fn. 1 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 24 ] (Scull), citing Evid. | 1 | 1 |
Menendez v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1997Further, the Supreme Court has noted that “[a]s a general matter at least, the privilege appears paramount to prosecution” and “does not deny due process.” (Menendez v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 435, 456, fn. 18 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 92 , 834 P.2d 786 ].) *1157 IV In their returns to the alternative writ, codefendants contend that Evidence Code section 1024, commonly referred to as the “dangerous patient” exception to the psychotherapist privilege, applies to the records they subpoenaed. 1997Further, the Supreme Court has noted that “[a]s a general matter at least, the privilege appears paramount to prosecution” and “does not deny due process.” (Menendez v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 435, 456, fn. 18 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 92 , 834 P.2d 786 ].) *1157 IV In their returns to the alternative writ, codefendants contend that Evidence Code section 1024, commonly referred to as the “dangerous patient” exception to the psychotherapist privilege, applies to the records they subpoenaed. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Lifschutzgreen2 sentences1983In In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 431-432 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 829 , 467 P.2d 557 , 44 A.L.R.3d 1 ] we recognized that the psychotherapist privilege has constitutional as well as statutory roots. [5] We held, in effect, that all purported legal invasions of the confidentiality between therapist and patient must be scrutinized in light of constitutionally protected privacy values. 1983In In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 431-432 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 829 , 467 P.2d 557 , 44 A.L.R.3d 1 ] we recognized that the psychotherapist privilege has constitutional as well as statutory roots. [5] We held, in effect, that all purported legal invasions of the confidentiality between therapist and patient must be scrutinized in light of constitutionally protected privacy values. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Story v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2023As explained in Story v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1007 , sexually violent predators are not comparable to a defendant who has been granted probation, let alone a tier one offender who is not on probation. 2017(Id. at pp. 384-388.) Contrary to plaintiffs’ implicit contentions, Gonzales did not hold that the psychotherapist privilege applies as a matter of law when a patient admits a past crime. *360 Similarly, Story, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th 1007 , does not support plaintiffs’ arguments concerning the past crimes of patients. | 2 | 2017–2023 |
People v. Flood
green
2 sentences2021(Accord People v. Henderson (1977) 19 Cal.3d 86 , 97–98 [defendant interview with jail psychotherapist not confidential when defendant advised of constitutional rights and informed interview was being conducted at request of district attorney], overruled on other grounds by People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 484 .) 20 Last, we conclude that the doctrine of informed consent has no bearing on whether the contents of Johnson’s interview should be sealed or destroyed. 2021(Accord People v. Henderson (1977) 19 Cal.3d 86 , 97–98 [defendant interview with jail psychotherapist not confidential when defendant advised of constitutional rights and informed interview was being conducted at request of district attorney], overruled on other grounds by People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 484 .) 20 Last, we conclude that the doctrine of informed consent has no bearing on whether the contents of Johnson’s interview should be sealed or destroyed. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Henderson
green
2 sentences2021(Accord People v. Henderson (1977) 19 Cal.3d 86 , 97–98 [defendant interview with jail psychotherapist not confidential when defendant advised of constitutional rights and informed interview was being conducted at request of district attorney], overruled on other grounds by People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 484 .) 20 Last, we conclude that the doctrine of informed consent has no bearing on whether the contents of Johnson’s interview should be sealed or destroyed. 2021(Accord People v. Henderson (1977) 19 Cal.3d 86 , 97–98 [defendant interview with jail psychotherapist not confidential when defendant advised of constitutional rights and informed interview was being conducted at request of district attorney], overruled on other grounds by People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 484 .) 20 Last, we conclude that the doctrine of informed consent has no bearing on whether the contents of Johnson’s interview should be sealed or destroyed. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2023(People v. Garcia, supra, at p. 813 , italics added.) 8 Mr. Whitehair is not a probationer subject to the Penal Code section 1203.067 limited waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, nor is he a “sexually violent predator” subject to the “dangerous patient” exception to the psychotherapist-privilege privilege set forth in Evidence Code section 1024. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van De Kamp
green
2 sentences2017(See Planned Parenthood, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d 245 .) 3 A psychotherapist must claim the privilege on behalf of a patient. 2017(See Planned Parenthood, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d 245 .) 3 A psychotherapist must claim the privilege on behalf of a patient. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Johnson v. County of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences1985In Johnson v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 298 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 704 ], decedent was arrested for driving on the wrong side of the freeway. 1985In Johnson v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 298 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 704 ], decedent was arrested for driving on the wrong side of the freeway. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.