VIEW TREE
ICON KEY
193027:false:false:false:false:false:false:true:false:false:!199705!:false:-1:-1
Is there a social worker-client privilege?
Add Comment
Contributed in 2009 by Peter Tillers
Browse from There is a psychotherapist-patient privilege
Law
»
Courts
»
Evidence
»
Admissibility of evidence
»
Collateral policy
»
Privileges
»
Nonconstitutional privileges
»
Particular privileges
»
Social worker-client privilege
»
Is there a social worker-client privilege?: Is there a social worker-client...
Narrow Down
Contribution Suggestions
vouch for authority for rule...
The hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule applies only if the the affected statement is more...Karme v. Commissioner, 673 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding, in taxpayers' claim for deduction, that the tax court properly admitted into evidence the bank records and testimony under the residual hearsay....
in support of
The hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule applies only if the the affected statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts.vouch for authority for rule...
A statement falls within the hearsay exception provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) only if the statement is related to a startling event or...Cole v. Tansy, 926 F.2d 955, 958 (10th Cir. 1991) (upholding trial court's admission of the unidentified witness's statement against petitioner as an excited utterance because all three requirements were met:....
in support of
A statement falls within the hearsay exception provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) only if the statement is related to a startling event or condition.vouch for authority for rule...
To fall within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule for person's present internal states, a...Cf. United States v. Naiden, 424 F.3d 718, 722-723 (11th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's exclusion of defendant's statement [that he did not believe his online acquaintance to be fourteen years old] as a state of mind....
in support of
To fall within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule for person's present internal states, a statement by the declarant (the maker of the statement) must be contemporaneous with the mental state or event sought to be proven.