psychiatrist-patient privilege (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

psychiatrist-patient privilege in Florida

5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1971–1991 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re Beverlygreen
fla · 1977 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
1 sentence

1977See In re Beverly, supra .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
McIntosh v. Milano green
njsuperctappdiv · 1979
2 sentences

1991Moreover, it has been widely held that the psychiatrist-patient privilege is subject to a clear exception when the welfare of others makes it "necessary, in order to protect the patient or the community from imminent danger, to reveal confidential information disclosed by the patient. [Reprinted in 130 Am.Jur.Psych. 1058, at 1063 (1973)]." McIntosh, 168 N.J.

1991Super. at 491 , 403 A.2d at 512 (citing Principles of Medical Ethics, § 9 (1957)). 5.

11991–1991
Roper v. Roper green
fladistctapp · 1976
1 sentence

1984In Roper v. Roper, 336 So.2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), this court held that a parent, by seeking child custody in a dissolution proceeding, did not automatically thereby waive the psychiatrist-patient privilege contained in section 90.242, Florida Statutes (1975).

11984–1984
Yoho v. Lindsley green
fladistctapp · 1971
1 sentence

1976Yoho v. Lindsley, 248 So.2d 187 (4th DCA Fla. 1971).

11976–1976
In Re Lifschutz green
cal · 1970
2 sentences

1971One of the most exhaustive treatments dealing with the scope and extent of this privilege appears in the recent decision of the Supreme Court of California in In re Lifschutz, 1970, 2 Cal.3d 415 , 85 Cal. Rptr. 829 , 467 P.2d 557 .

1971One of the most exhaustive treatments dealing with the scope and extent of this privilege appears in the recent decision of the Supreme Court of California in In re Lifschutz, 1970, 2 Cal.3d 415 , 85 Cal. Rptr. 829 , 467 P.2d 557 .

11971–1971

Where else courts name it

GA 27 (1979–2025) CT 17 (1983–2023) PA 16 (1991–2022) AL 10 (1987–2016) IL 7 (1969–2024) FL 5 (1971–1991) KY 5 (1984–2017) MI 4 (1980–2000) MD 4 (1978–2023) NM 2 (1991–1991) AK 2 (2012–2023) CA 2 (1975–2014) CO 2 (2001–2011) NY 2 (1999–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check