336 So. 2d 654 - Roper v. Roper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The trial court would be faced with an entirely different situation if the wife should offer the testimony of her treating psychiatrist to prove her mental condition. In that event the door would have been opened and the privilege waived.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Husgen v. Stussie · Kinsella v. Kinsella

2. “(4) There is no privilege under this section: ... . (c) For communications relevant to an issue of the mental or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which he relies upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense... .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 451 So. 2d 1051 - Davidge v. Davidge · 404 So. 2d 208 - McIntyre v. McIntyre

3. “This court has previously considered the psychiatrist-patient privilege. Yoho v. Lindsley, 248 So.2d 187 (4th DCA Fla.1971). We will not repeat the discussion contained in that case but will apply the principles there announced to the specific facts of this case. The threshold question is whether or not the wife, by seeking child custody in a suit for dissolution of marriage, introduced her mental condition as an element of her claim or defense so as to waive the privilege for any relevant communications. Fla.Stat. s 90.242(3)(b) (1975). There is no doubt, in a child custody dispute, that the mental and physical health of the parents is a factor that the court can and should consider in determining die best interests of the child. Fla.Stat. s 61.13(3)(g) (1975). Green v. Green, 254 So.2d 860 (1st DCA Fla.1971). However, we do not believe that simply by seeking custody of her children, wife has made her mental condition 'an element of her claim or defense' thereby waiving her psychiatrist-patient privilege. The wife's mental condition may become an issue in the case; and if so, relevant evidence concerning her mental condition may be presented at trial. Prior to trial, the husband has the benefit of Rule 1.360 R.C.P. Upon a proper motion and showing of good cause, the trial court can require the wife to submit to a compulsory pre-trial mental examination. Gordon v. Davis, 267 So.2d 874 (3rd DCA Fla. 1972). The dissent decided as follows: However, it seems to me that when the a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sussman v. Sussman