Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Maynard v. Heeren

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 28, 1997No. NonePublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKonenkamp, Justice

[¶22.] How much of one’s innermost secrets must be exposed when mental and emotional state become an issue in a lawsuit? In ordering virtually unlimited access to all records, I believe the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to oversee a process of allowing pertinent disclosure. Now the majority endorses the error by announcing a rule of “absolute” access to a patient’s psychotherapy records. While I generally concur with the Court’s analysis of privilege waiver under SDCL 19-2-3 and 19-13-11, I wholly disagree with its inadequate treatment of what becomes discoverable following…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Walker v. PackerTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  3. United States v. ZolinSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Jaffee v. RedmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. Jampole v. TouchyTexas Supreme Court · 1984

26 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