Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California: psychotherapist's obligation of confidentiality versus the duty to warn.

It's been a privilege: advising patients of the Tarasoff duty and its legal consequences for the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege.

State laws modeled on Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California require psychotherapists to warn potential victims or law enforcement when treating dangerous patients who make serious threats of harm to another person. In practice, many psychotherapists advise their patients who make such threats about their duty under these Tarasoff-model laws. Although they are not required to make ...

The dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege: the Tarasoff duty and the Jaffee footnote.

With the U.S. Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, all U.S. jurisdictions have now adopted some form of evidentiary privilege for confidential statements by patients to psychotherapists for the purpose of seeking treatment. The majority of states, following the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, have also adopted so...

The duty to warn: a reconsideration and critique.

A previous article in this Journal surveyed a psychotherapist’s legal duty to warn third parties of violent threats made by a patient. Twenty-seven states impose an actual duty to warn (as did the seminal case of Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California itself ): Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minne...

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California: psychotherapists, policemen and the duty to warn--an unreasonable extension of the common law?

Tarasoff, the doctrine of special relationships, and the psychotherapist's duty to warn.

the doctrine of special relationships, and the psychotherapist's duty to warn"