State Ex Rel. D.M. v. Hoester

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that child abuse reporting statute vitiated physician-patient privilege and psychiatrist could be compelled to reveal alleged sexual abuser’s medical records in a civil action for damages
• holding that child abuse reporting statute vitiated physician-patient privilege and psychiatrist could be compelled to reveal alleged sexual abuser's medical records in a civil action for damages
• holding that child abuse reporting statute vitiated physician-patient privilege and psychiatrist could be compelled to reveal alleged sexual abuser's medical records in a civil action for damages
• holding that state privilege statute did not operate to bar “evidence in any judicial proceeding relating to child abuse or neglect” (emphasis removed) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted)
• holding that state privilege statute did not operate to bar “evidence in any judicial proceeding relating to child abuse or neglect” (emphasis removed) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).