Add to ORKGThe duty of psychotherapists to warn threatened third persons of serious danger from their patients was established by the California Supreme Court in Tarasoff v. Regents. After a rehearing, the court in a second opinion modified its holding to provide for a more flexible duty. The author discusses the second opinion, its place in developing concepts of liability, and the major criticisms of the holding. The Note discusses the problem of foreseeability and proposes a standard of care
The California Supreme Court, in its controversial Tarasoff decision, ruled that a psychotherapist m...
This Comment argues that the Texas Supreme Court was correct in declining to follow the Tarasoff doc...
This Comment argues that the Texas Supreme Court was correct in declining to follow the Tarasoff doc...
The duty of psychotherapists to warn threatened third persons of serious danger from their patients ...
State laws modeled on Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California require psychotherapists t...
Twenty-three states have enacted Tarasoff statutes applicable to psychiatrists. Since the first such...
This Comment discusses the Tarasoff decisions and subsequent cases defining the scope of the psychot...
The California Supreme Court, in its controversial Tarasoff decision, ruled that a psychotherapist m...
This Comment will highlight the issues of the therapist\u27s duty to warn potential victims and the ...
Offers a brief history of duty-to-protect statutes, which limit the liability of psychotherapists wh...
In most jurisdictions, the Tarasoff duty is defined as a duty on the part of mental health professio...
Since the first Tarasoff decision in 1974, the question of mental health professionals’ “duty to pro...
In most jurisdictions, the Tarasoff duty is defined as a duty on the part of mental health professio...
Despite the almost universal familiarity of mental health professionals with the Tarasoff case, many...
Despite the almost universal familiarity of mental health professionals with the Tarasoff case, many...
The California Supreme Court, in its controversial Tarasoff decision, ruled that a psychotherapist m...
This Comment argues that the Texas Supreme Court was correct in declining to follow the Tarasoff doc...
This Comment argues that the Texas Supreme Court was correct in declining to follow the Tarasoff doc...
The duty of psychotherapists to warn threatened third persons of serious danger from their patients ...
State laws modeled on Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California require psychotherapists t...
Twenty-three states have enacted Tarasoff statutes applicable to psychiatrists. Since the first such...
This Comment discusses the Tarasoff decisions and subsequent cases defining the scope of the psychot...
The California Supreme Court, in its controversial Tarasoff decision, ruled that a psychotherapist m...
This Comment will highlight the issues of the therapist\u27s duty to warn potential victims and the ...
Offers a brief history of duty-to-protect statutes, which limit the liability of psychotherapists wh...
In most jurisdictions, the Tarasoff duty is defined as a duty on the part of mental health professio...
Since the first Tarasoff decision in 1974, the question of mental health professionals’ “duty to pro...
In most jurisdictions, the Tarasoff duty is defined as a duty on the part of mental health professio...
Despite the almost universal familiarity of mental health professionals with the Tarasoff case, many...
Despite the almost universal familiarity of mental health professionals with the Tarasoff case, many...
The California Supreme Court, in its controversial Tarasoff decision, ruled that a psychotherapist m...
This Comment argues that the Texas Supreme Court was correct in declining to follow the Tarasoff doc...
This Comment argues that the Texas Supreme Court was correct in declining to follow the Tarasoff doc...