Ewing v. Goldstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ewing v. Goldstein 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) is a landmark court case that extended California mental health professional's duty to protect identifiable victims of potentially violent persons, as established by Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, to include acting upon communications from third parties that indicate a possible threat.[1]
This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (March 2022) |
Quick Facts Ewing v. Goldstein, Court ...
Ewing v. Goldstein | |
---|---|
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Full case name | Cal Ewing et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. David Goldstein, Ph.D., Defendant and Respondent. |
Decided | July 16, 2004 (2004-07-16) |
Citation(s) | 120 Cal. App. 4th 807; 15 Cal Rptr. 3d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Paul Boland, Candace D. Cooper, Laurence D. Rubin |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Boland |
Concurrence | Cooper, Rubin |
Keywords | |
Close