6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ulibarri v. SUPERIOR CT. CTY. OF COCONINOgreen2 sentences2014See Ulibarri v. Superior Court, 184 Ariz. 382, 387 , 909 P.2d 449, 454 (App.1995). 2014See Ulibarri v. Superior Court, 184 Ariz. 382, 387 , 909 P.2d 449, 454 (App.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Samaritan Health Services v. City of Glendalegreen2 sentences1996Samaritan Health Services v. City of Glendale, 148 Ariz. 394, 397 , 714 P.2d 887, 890 (App.1986) (hospital has no duty to assert physician-patient privilege “when served with a search warrant relating to its patients’ medical records.”) See also Benton v. Superior Court, 182 Ariz. 466, 468 , 897 P.2d 1352, 1354 (App.1994) (physician-patient privilege does not protect victim-patient records in criminal prosecution; “the public policy mandating prosecution of criminals is more compelling than the physician patient privilege”). 1996Samaritan Health Services v. City of Glendale, 148 Ariz. 394, 397 , 714 P.2d 887, 890 (App.1986) (hospital has no duty to assert physician-patient privilege “when served with a search warrant relating to its patients’ medical records.”) See also Benton v. Superior Court, 182 Ariz. 466, 468 , 897 P.2d 1352, 1354 (App.1994) (physician-patient privilege does not protect victim-patient records in criminal prosecution; “the public policy mandating prosecution of criminals is more compelling than the physician patient privilege”). | 2 | 2 |
Benton v. Superior Court, Navajo Countygreen2 sentences1996Samaritan Health Services v. City of Glendale, 148 Ariz. 394, 397 , 714 P.2d 887, 890 (App.1986) (hospital has no duty to assert physician-patient privilege “when served with a search warrant relating to its patients’ medical records.”) See also Benton v. Superior Court, 182 Ariz. 466, 468 , 897 P.2d 1352, 1354 (App.1994) (physician-patient privilege does not protect victim-patient records in criminal prosecution; “the public policy mandating prosecution of criminals is more compelling than the physician patient privilege”). 1996Samaritan Health Services v. City of Glendale, 148 Ariz. 394, 397 , 714 P.2d 887, 890 (App.1986) (hospital has no duty to assert physician-patient privilege “when served with a search warrant relating to its patients’ medical records.”) See also Benton v. Superior Court, 182 Ariz. 466, 468 , 897 P.2d 1352, 1354 (App.1994) (physician-patient privilege does not protect victim-patient records in criminal prosecution; “the public policy mandating prosecution of criminals is more compelling than the physician patient privilege”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hattongreen1 sentence2016Because of our resolution of this issue, we need not address Victim’s statutory privileges, nor the potential waiver thereof. 3 ¶12 Scott speculates that the “records contain information that would call into question the victim’s ability to perceive events and would have provided impeachment of her testimony.” However, Scott provides no basis for the court to conclude that the mental health records he sought contained impeachment evidence beyond what he already knew, or beyond 3 The State asserts that the records sought were protected by the physician-patient privilege, A.R.S. § 13-4062(4), an | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trammel v. United States
green
2 sentences2014For that reason, the supreme court held that “we need not consider whether the courts of the Navajo Nation recognize the attorney-client or accountant-client privileges as those privileges exist in Arizona.” Id. ¶ 28 Based on the supreme court’s clear directive in Tracy , the superior court understandably — and correctly — held that whether Johnson’s treatment records are protected under the psychologist-client privilege should be resolved in the Wisconsin court and that Johnson consequently had no standing to object to the issuance of the summons. 2014For that reason, the supreme court held that “we need not consider whether the courts of the Navajo Nation recognize the attorney- client or accountant-client privileges as those privileges exist in Arizona.” Id. ¶28 Based on the supreme court’s clear directive in Tracy, the superior court understandably—and correctly—held that whether Johnson’s treatment records are protected under the psychologist-client privilege should be resolved in the Wisconsin court and that Johnson consequently had no standing to object to the issuance of the summons. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Bain v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY.
green
1 sentence2022And a patient may impliedly waive the psychologist-patient privilege by “pursu[ing] a course of conduct inconsistent with observance of the privilege.” See Bain, 148 Ariz. at 334 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.