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 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Norskog v. Pfielgreen1 sentence2024Plaintiff also relies on Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60, 72 (2001), to establish “[a]ll 50 states, the District of Columbia and the federal courts recognize a psychiatrist-patient privilege, either by statute or common law.” ¶ 18 Neither Stuckey nor Norskog assist this court in reconciling the conflict plaintiff presents. | 1 | 1 |
Geisberger v. Willuhngreen1 sentence1984See Geisberger v. Willuhn (1979), 72 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jaffee v. Redmond
green
2 sentences2001Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 12 , 135 L. 2001Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 12 , 135 L. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Koerner v. Westland
green
2 sentences1981App. 3d 172, 176 , 362 N.E.2d 1153, 1156 .) We nevertheless held the psychiatrist-patient privilege to be applicable there to information the psychiatrist had obtained as the obvious result of his conversation with the patient. 1980App. 3d 172, 176-77 , 362 N.E.2d 1153 , the State argued that an additional exception to the psychiatrist-patient privilege should be created when the best interests of a child are at stake. | 2 | 1980–1981 |
The People v. English
green
1 sentence1969This same section was relied on in People v. English, 31 Ill2d 301, 201 NE2d 455 , and the Supreme Court there held that this section does not apply to the psychiatrist-patient privilege where the examination is by a court-appointed physician because such examination does not constitute consultation with the physician in his professional character and does not apply where the court orders a psychiatric examination. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.