Bracken v. MH Pillars Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that \[t]he 1981 revision [to the priest-penitent privilege] paralleled the A-4975-17T3 25 psychologist-patient privilege in one other way: it protected both communications and the fact that a confidential relationship existed between a cleric and a penitent.\
• “[C]ourts sensibly accommodate privileges to the ‘aim of a just result[.]’ ” (quoting State v. Briley, 53 N.J. 498, 506, 251 A.2d 442 (1969))
• “[C]ourts sensibly accommodate privileges to the ‘aim of a just result[.]’” (quoting State v. Briley, 53 N.J. 498, 506 (1969))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).