These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11658934)
1. Privileged communications for psychotherapists in Pennsylvania: a time for statutory reform. Knapp SJ; VandeCreek L; Zirkel PA Temple Law Q; 1987; 60(2):267-92. PubMed ID: 11658934 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California: the duty to warn--common law and statutory problems for California psychotherapists. Cohen RN Calif West Law Rev; 1978; 14(1):153-82. PubMed ID: 11664959 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The privilege study: an empirical examination of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Shuman DW; Weiner MS North Carol Law Rev; 1982 Jun; 60(5):893-942. PubMed ID: 11658717 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The psychiatric duty to warn: walking a tightrope of uncertainty. McClarren GM Univ Cincinnati Law Rev; 1987; 56(1):269-93. PubMed ID: 11658955 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Psychotherapy and privileged communications in child custody cases. Knapp SJ; Vandecreek L Prof Psychol Res Pr; 1985 Jun; 16(3):398-407. PubMed ID: 11650745 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The psychotherapist-patient privilege in Washington: extending the privilege to community mental health clinics. Hague WW Wash Law Rev; 1983 Jul; 58(3):565-86. PubMed ID: 11658506 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Tarasoff: five years later. Knapp S; Vandecreek L Prof Psychol; 1982 Aug; 13(4):511-5. PubMed ID: 11658658 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Evidence law--the psychotherapist-patient privilege in federal courts. Cerveny K; Kent MJ Notre Dame Law Rev; 1984; 59(3):791-816. PubMed ID: 11658789 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Standards for involuntary civil commitment in Pennsylvania. Meyers BA Univ Pittsbg Law Rev; 1977; 38(3):535-49. PubMed ID: 11663030 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Discovery of psychotherapist-patient communications after Tarasoff. Olander AJ San Diego Law Rev; 1978 Mar; 15(2):265-85. PubMed ID: 11664881 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Pennsylvania's new Mental Health Procedures Act: due process and the right to treatment for the mentally ill. Lundeen PA Dickinson Law Rev; 1977; 81(3):627-47. PubMed ID: 11664828 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The psychotherapist-patient privilege: are some patients more privileged than others? Stroube MK Pac Law J; 1979 Jul; 10(2):801-24. PubMed ID: 11661824 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Eavesdropping on the 50-minute hour: managed mental health care and confidentiality. Corcoran K; Winslade WJ Behav Sci Law; 1994; 12():351-65. PubMed ID: 11660198 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Psychotherapeutic disclosures: a conflict between right and duty. Sloan JB; Klein SB Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1977; 9(1):57-72. PubMed ID: 11665266 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Negligence--physicians and surgeons--duty imposed on psychotherapists to exercise reasonable care to warn potential victims of foreseeably imminent dangers posed by mentally ill patients. Malcolm JJ Seton Hall Law Rev; 1975; 6(3):536-50. PubMed ID: 11664475 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Warning third parties: the ripple effects of Tarasoff. Rosenhan DL; Teitelbaum TW; Teitelbaum KW; Davidson M Pac Law J; 1993 Apr; 24(3):1165-232. PubMed ID: 11660219 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. A drug addict's right to anonymity. DeSabato AA Villanova Law Rev; 1975 Mar; 20(4):800-36. PubMed ID: 11664514 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. State v. Andring. Minnesota. Supreme Court Wests North West Rep; 1984 Jan; 342():128-35. PubMed ID: 12041156 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]