Roosevelt Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Sweeney

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the court “agree[d] with those jurisdictions that have refused to order the execution of waivers and ex parte interviews” and that its “discovery rules do not provide for such a procedure”
• noting “the medical profession’s self-imposed standard of conduct, originating in the Hippocratic oath, that a physician not disclose a patient’s confidences without the patient’s consent, except as authorized or required by law”
• “Section 622.10 applies only to the testimonial use of privileged information ... because it comes into play ‘in giving testimony.’ ”
• \Section 622.10 applies only to the testimonial use of privileged information. . . because it comes into play `in giving testimony.'\
• \The physician-patient rule provided in section 622.10 is an evidentiary rule rather than a substantive right.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).