want based on how they feel. This week we had the chance to read about the decision of Tarasoff v. the Board of Regents of the University of California. This was a very interesting case and gave a lot of insight as to what we should expect in regards to confidentiality once we become professionals. In this paper I will discuss the decision of decision of Tarasoff v. the Board of Regents of the University of California. I will also explain how this case relates to the therapist-client relationship in
Premium Informed consent
07-22-09 Tarasoff v. Regents 17 Cal 3d 425 Facts: On October 27‚ 1969‚ Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Plaintiffs‚ Tatiana’s parents‚ allege that two months earlier Poddar confided his intention to kill Tatiana to Dr. Lawrence Moore‚ a psychologist employed by the Cowell Memorial Hospital at the University of California at Berkeley. They allege that on Moore’s request‚ the campus police briefly detained Poddar‚ but released him when he appeared rational. They further claim that Dr.
Premium Law Legal terms Pleading
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California was a case in 1976 which the Supreme Court of California decided that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by any of their patients. Originally‚ in 1974‚ the decision was mandated warning the threatened person or persons but‚ in the year 1976 the California Supreme Court decided that it was intended for a “duty to protect” a victim. Mr. Poddar was a graduate student in the University
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
In 1976‚ the California Supreme Court ruled that psychotherapists have a duty to warn and protect potential victims if their patients made threats or otherwise behaved as if they presented a serious danger of violence to another. This ruling happened because of the Tarasoff Case of 1969‚ in which the court determined the need for therapists to protect the public was more important than protecting patient-therapist confidentiality. (Vitelli 1) The Tarasoff Case is based on the 1969 murder of a University
Premium Marriage Love Emotion
In 1969‚ a student at UC Berkeley‚ Proseniit Poddar‚ sought out a university psychiatrist by the name of Dr. Moore. Poddar had began stalking a girl named Tatiana Tarasoff‚ shortly after she wanted to just be friends with him‚ somewhat rejecting him romantically. After several sessions‚ Poddar threatened to kill Tarasoff.. After hearing this‚ Dr. Moore discussed the case with the police stating that Poddar was unstable and potentially very dangerous‚ and wanted him committed to a facility. The police
Premium Law Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California Common law
Professor Ballone 14 February 2014 Obscenity in Miller v. California Today in our criminal justice system there exists a policy known as “The Miller Test”. The purpose of this test is to determine whether or not a given substance is obscene or not. It is a test that is frequently used today by police‚ and its significance is clearly obvious. The “Miller Test” is a direct result from the outcome of the U.S Supreme Court decision‚ Miller v. California. In this case‚ a local business owner who specialized
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Angela jackson Ap government 9 September 2014 Riley v. California In the case of Riley v California the defendant and petitioner David Leon Riley was arrested August 22‚ 2009‚ after a traffic stop which resulted in the finding of loaded guns in car. The officer stopped riley searched him and took hold of his phone and then searched through messages‚ contacts‚ and photos. The officer charged Riley with an unrelated shooting that had taken place
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Mobile phone
Criminal Justice 1 Case Review October 16‚ 2013 Terry Brice Horton v. California Argued February 21‚ 1990 496 U.S. 128‚ 110 S. Ct. 2301‚ 110 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1990) The defendant’s armed robbery conviction was upheld by the California Supreme Court‚ the defendant then petitioned the writ of certiorari‚ which is a decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court. Justice Stevens then held that “Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless seizure of evidence of crime
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma‚ 468 U.S. 85 (1984)‚ was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) television plan violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. These antitrust laws were designed to prohibit group actions that restrained open competition and trade. The NCAA was an organization that regulated college athletics‚ and membership was voluntary‚ although NCAA schools were not allowed
Premium National Collegiate Athletic Association College United States
discrimination‚ promote diversity‚ and ensure equal opportunities in education and employment‚ despite recent challenges. 2) Necessary Background Information: Understanding President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 in 1961 and legal rulings such as Regents v. Bakke (1978) is crucial to comprehending what surrounds this issue. Affirmative action stemmed from President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 in 1961 and this executive order aimed to eliminate discrimination in employment practices “without regard
Premium