Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 90.508 (2025)

Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

90.508 Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege.—Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is inadmissible against the holder of the privilege if the statement or disclosure was compelled erroneously by the court or made without opportunity to claim the privilege.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1990–2014 · leading case: Ray v. Cutter Labs., Div. of Miles, Inc., 746 F. Supp. 86 (M.D. Fla. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ray v. Cutter Labs., Div. of Miles, Inc., 746 F. Supp. 86 (M.D. Fla. 1990). · cites it 3× “, § 90.508 at 527. Defendant’s reliance, however, is clearly misplaced.”

Smith v. Armour Pharm. Co., 838 F. Supp. 1573 (S.D. Fla. 1993). · cites it 2× “at 938 (citation omitted); accord Comments (Law Revision Council Note — 1976) to Fla.Stat. § 90.508 (Addressing a situation where the contents of a confidential document have become publicly known because a court has erroneously compelled its production, the comments state,…”

S & I Investments v. Payless Flea Mkt., Inc., 10 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). · cites it 2× “Further, section 90.508, Florida Statutes, provides that evidence or disclosure of privileged matter is inadmissible against the holder (client) only if the statement or disclosure “was compelled erroneously by the court or made without opportunity to claim the privilege.”

Mordenti v. State, 982 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). · cites it 2× “" [4] Suppose Mordenti had been executed following his first conviction and sentence before this information was revealed by the State? What confidence would the public have in the criminal justice system? [5] I recognize that section 90.508, Florida Statutes (2006), renders…”

Myron Ex Rel. Brock v. Doctors Gen. Hosp., 704 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). · cites it 2× “Section 90.508, Florida Statutes (1993), provides, in pertinent part: Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is inadmissible against the holder of the privilege if the statement or disclosure was compelled erroneously by the court.”

Holmes Reg. Med. v. Health Care Admin., 731 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). “508 provides that "[e]vidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is inadmissible against the holder of the privilege if the statement or disclosure was compelled erroneously by the court or made without opportunity to claim the privilege.”

S.P., by & through her Nat. guardian R.P. v. Anthony Vecchio & the State of Florida, 162 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). · cites it 2× “There are only three enumerated exceptions to the psychotherapist-patient privilege; it does not apply (1) during involuntary commitment proceedings, (2) when there is a court-ordered mental examination, or (3) when the patient, or a party after the patient’s death, raises and…”

Myron v. Doctors Gen. Hosp., Ltd., 704 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). · cites it 2× “Section 90.508, Florida Statutes (1993), provides, in pertinent part: Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is inadmissible against the holder of the privilege if the statement or disclosure was compelled erroneously by the court.”

Melody v. State Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 706 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “The privileges asserted here are based in part on section 90.508 of the Florida Evidence Code, which provides in subsection (l)(c): A communication between psychotherapist and patient is “confidential” if it is not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than: 1.”

Crain v. Prison Health Servs., 80 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). · cites it 2× “Section 90.508, Florida Statutes (2011), recognizes a psychotherapist-patient privilege and carves out three exceptions— none of which apply here.”

— 90.508(4) — 1 case

S.P., by & through her Nat. guardian R.P. v. Anthony Vecchio & the State of Florida, 162 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “There are only three enumerated exceptions to the psychotherapist-patient privilege; it does not apply (1) during involuntary commitment proceedings, (2) when there is a court-ordered mental examination, or (3) when the patient, or a party after the patient’s death, raises and…”

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.