No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2021
1 301 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2002).
2 Id. at 1024.
3 Id. at 1022.
4 Id. at 1022-23.
5 Id. at 1021.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 1022.
8 Id.
9 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
10 Chase, 301 F.3d at 1023.
11 Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 15.
12 Chase, 301 F.3d at 1023.
13 Id. at 1024.
14 Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 18 n.19.
15 Chase, 301 F.3d at 1024.
16 Compare United States v. Glass, 133 F.3d 1356 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding that a “dangerous patient” exception exists for the psychotherapist-patient privilege, which can compel disclosure of communications made to a therapist) with United States v. Hayes, 227 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that there is no “dangerous patient” exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege in criminal proceedings).
17 Hayes, 227 F.3d at 585.
18 Chase, 301 F.3d at 1024.
19 Hayes, 227 F.3d at 588 (Boggs, J., dissenting).
20 Chase, 301 F.3d at 1024.
21 See id.; see also Hayes, 227 F.3d at 584.
22 Chase, 301 F.3d at 1025.
23 Id.