Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 899 — Evidence
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-146a (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Transferred to Sec. 52-146d.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1965–2009 · leading case: State v. Orr, 969 A.2d 750 (Conn. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Orr, 969 A.2d 750 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 8× “to 1968) § 52-146a and created a new exception to the psychiatrist-patient privilege "when the psychiatrist determines that there is substantial risk of imminent physical injury by the patient to himself or others.”
Home Ins. v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 663 A.2d 1001 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 2× “We find nothing in the legislative history of §§ 52-146e and 52-146f, or their precursor, General Statutes § 52-146a, to suggest that the legislature intended the result urged by Home.”
Pass v. Pass, 208 A.2d 753 (Conn. 1965). · cites it 4× “The defendant demurred on the grounds that the claimed newly discovered evidence is cumulative, designed solely to impeach the credibility of a witness, related to incidents subsequent to the divorce judgment, not likely to produce a different result, and in part inadmissible…”
State v. Jenkins, 856 A.2d 383 (Conn. 2004). “1961) § 52-146a, the statutory precursor to §§ 52-146d through 52-146Í, testified that, “in drafting the bill, [the drafters] proceeded with a very deliberate concern for the problem of balancing of interest[s].”
Goldenberg v. Wolfe, 44 F.R.D. 33 (D. Conn. 1968). · cites it 2× “Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-146a, defining privileged communications between psychiatrist and patient, provides that “[t]here shall be no privilege for any relevant communications under this section: .”
St. Martin v. Manchester Radiologists, Inc., 248 A.2d 787 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1968). · cites it 2× “Patently clear reasons for limiting the disclosure of certain reports appear in several statutes: General Statutes § 17-47a (records on child care institutions); §52-146a (psychiatrist-patient communications).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.