State v. Pelley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that application of a new counselor/client privilege to communications occurring before the privilege's enactment constituted retroactive application
• recognizing that the statutory amendment at issue was enacted in response to an opinion of our Court but nonetheless stating that “it is not at all clear to us that the . . . statute is remedial”
• explaining that while statutes addressing remedial matters may be applied retroactively, “such application is not required”
• providing that “some discovery” is permissible under Jorgensen, but unless the homicide exception applies, any communication between the psychologist and patient is privileged and not discoverable
• concluding that it was “not at all clear” if the statute at issue was remedial because although it was enacted in response to a Court of Appeals’ decision, it was also enacted as part of a broader scheme to regulate social workers as professionals
• “Stat- utes are to be given prospective effect only, unless the legislature unequivocally and unambiguously intended retrospective effect as well.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).