Legal Opinion

Scott v. Hammock

Utah Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1994No. 910112PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEWART, Associate Chief Justice:

The United States District Court for the District of Utah certified to this Court the following question of law: “Whether non-penitential communications between a lay person and a clergyman are privileged under Utah law.” We accepted the certification pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-2(1) (1992 & Supp.1993). We hold that nonpeni-tential communications are privileged under Utah law if they are intended to be confidential and are made for the purpose of seeking spiritual counseling, guidance, or advice from a cleric acting in his or her professional role and…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Angleton v. AngletonIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Berry v. MoenchUtah Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Carolyn Mullen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1959
  4. In Re Estate of SoederOhio Court of Appeals · 1966
  5. Griffin v. CoughlinDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1990

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. StewartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. State v. MacKinnonMontana Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State v. MartinWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State v. MartinWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Doe v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day SaintsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API