Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 211 Wis. 2d 372 - State v. Solberg

211 Wis. 2d 372 - State v. Solberg’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2023

18 state decisions

601997200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on California v. Trombetta · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Oklahoma v. New Mexico · 136 Wis. 2d 333 - State v. Turner · 146 Wis. 2d 315 - State v. Robinson

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(2) General rule of privilege. A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made or information obtained or disseminated for purposes of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's physical, mental or emotional condition, among the patient, the patient's physician, the patient's registered nurse, the patient's chiropractor, the patient's psychologist, the patient's social worker, the patient's marriage and family therapist, the patient's professional counselor or persons, including members of the patient's family, who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the physician, registered nurse, chiropractor, psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist or professional counselor.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “giving the defendant an opportunity to have the circuit court conduct an in camera review of the privileged records, while still allowing the patient to preclude that review, addresse[d] both the interests of the defendant and the patient.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “strikes an appropriate balance between the defendant's due process right to be given a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense and the policy interests underlying the Wis. Stat. § 904.05 (2) privilege.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.