Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 967 A.2d 1024 - Gates v. Gates

Gates v. Gates’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Zane v. Friends Hospital · 2008 Pa. Super. 183 - Lerner v. Lerner · 2004 Pa. Super. 33 - Commonwealth v. Moody · 2004 Pa. Super. 102 - In Re Contempt of Cullen · T.B. v. L.R.M.

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

  1. “Presuming Father’s primary purpose in seeking the privileged documents was to ensure the existing custody order was in [his son’s] best interest, we recognize that Father was entitled to place Mother’s mental condition at issue in the custody proceedings. Nonetheless, less intrusive means exist for the trial court to make a determination as to Mother’s suitability as a custodial parent, rather than releasing Mother’s privileged mental-health records from her December 2007 hospitalization and vitiating her statutory right of confidentiality. For example, Father can utilize Mother’s testimony from the March 28, 2008 hearing to attempt to sustain his burden of proving modification is warranted, and if further inquiry into Mother’s mental health is necessary, the trial court can order Mother to submit to a psychological evaluation pursuant to Rule 1915.8. However, Mother’s mental health records are not subject to disclosure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]e acknowledge and cannot emphasize too strongly an expectation of confidentiality in mental health records is critical to effective mental health treatment. Zane [v. Friends Hospital, 575 Pa. 236 , 836 A.2d 25 (2003) ]. As our Supreme Court stated in Zane, supra: The importance of confidentiality cannot be overemphasized. To require the Hospital to disclose mental health records ... would not only violate [the] statutory guarantee of confidentiality, but would have a chilling effect on mental health treatment in general. The purpose of the Mental Health Procedures Act of seeking “to assure the availability of adequate treatment to persons who are mentally ill,” 50 P.S. § 7102, would be severely crippled if a patient’s records could be the subject of discovery in a panoply of possible legal proceedings.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “§ 5944. Confidential communications to psychiatrists or licensed psychologists No psychiatrist or person who has been licensed under the act of March 23, 1972 (P.L. 136, No. 52), to practice psychology shall be, without the written consent of his client, examined in any civil or criminal matter as to any information acquired in the course of his professional services in behalf of such client. The confidential relations and communications between a psychologist or psychiatrist and his client shall be on the same basis as those provided or prescribed by law between an attorney and client.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.