Ex Parte Day
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Dissent
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority of the court. The majority holds "that the testimony of the psychiatrist was `privileged'" under Code 1975, § 34-26-2. I would affirm the decision of the trial court, which interpreted the legislative intent to be that only psychologists were included in the privilege established by § 34-26-2 and not psychiatrists.
Code 1975, § 34-26-2, the statute which the instant case turns on, reads as follows:
For the purpose of this chapter, the confidential relations and communications between licensed psychologist and client are placed upon the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Adams v. MathisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1977
- Holloway v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
- Department of Industrial Relations v. Little Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1950