Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Landmark Cases > Landmark Cases > Flashcards

Landmark Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Canterbury v. Spence (DC COA 1972)

A

Informed consent: physicians have to divulge what reasonable pt would want to know, not what physicians would determine for themselves

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Lifschutz in re (2 Cal 1970)

A

Psychotherapist does not get to claim absolute confidentiality regardless of pt’s wishes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Doe v. Roe (NY 1977)

A

Without waiver, psychiatrist can’t disclose facts obtained from pt during tx

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Commonwealth v. Kobrin (Mass 1985)

A

Privilege does not apply absolutely to all medical records necessary for a specific legal inquiry

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Jaffe v. Redmond (1996)

A

Psychotherapist-pt communications are confidential and protected from compelled disclosure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

M’Naghten (1843)

A

Defendant is not responsible only if he was so insane he didn’t know what he was doing or that it was wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Durham v. U.S. (1954 DC COA)

A

Once any evidence of mental disease introduced, prosecution must show the crime was not the product of this ds beyond a reasonable doubt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Sims v. State (2005)

A

Appropriate standard for appellate review is not if the State provided any evidence of competency, but whether a rational person could agree that the defendant failed to prove incompetency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Sell

A

The State can administer involuntary drugs to restore competency, but only if medically appropriate, necessary and likely to restore competency, and for a compelling government interest.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Harper

A

Can administer, but only if in best medical interests and state has compelling interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Riggins v. Nevada

A

may be able to administer invol meds to restore competency, but only if medically appropriate and can’t get by less intrusive means

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Indiana v. Edwards

A

Defendant may be CST but not competent to represent self, and the State can insist on representation by counsel then

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Johnson v. State

A

In proposing involuntary tx, the State must explicitly conclude all 4 parts of Sell

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Application of Presidents and Directors of Georgetown College (DC COA 1964)

A

Appropriate to administer life-saving care without consent if it is necessary and likely to preserve status quo for full consideration.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Rennie v. Klein (US COA 3rd Cir)

A

Involuntarily committed pt has constitutional right to refuse tx, but medical professionals can administer necessary medications as long as using professional judgment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Rogers v. Commissioner of Mental Health

A

Incompetence and substituted judgment are judicial matters and not invoked with involuntary commitment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Washington v. Harper

A

State does not require full judicial hearing to involuntarily administer meds, as long as inmate represents harm self/others, tx is in inmate’s medical interests, and certain safeguards are met

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Hargrave v. Vermont

A

State can’t override DPOA to administer invol meds just bc committed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Wyatt v. Stickney

A

Committed pts have right to at least minimum standards of habitation and care regardless of funding limitations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Estelle v. Gamble

A

Deliberate indifference to pts’ medical needs violates 8th amendment, but questionable medical judgments do not

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Youngberg v. Romeo

A

Committed pts have a right to reasonably safe conditions and minimally necessary restraints

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Parham v. JR (SCOTUS 1979)

A

Parents or guardians can consent for hospitalization of a minor against the minor’s will, as long as a neutral party has determine it’s appropriate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Landeros v. Flood (CA SC 1976)

A

Physicians can be held liable if they fail to dx/report child abuse, and the child suffers cont’d injuries

24
Q

People v. Stritzinger (CA SC 1983)

A

Privilege allows you to report child abuse but not submit unlimited testimony regarding any details to interested law enforcement

25
Q

Painter v. Bannister (IA SC 1966)

A

When determining custody, safety and stability should be considered as paramount for best interests of the child

26
Q

Santosky v. Kramer (SCOTUS 1982)

A

State may terminate custody rights under their own procedures such as “permanent neglect,” but must provide clear and convincing evidence

27
Q

Board of Education v. Rowley (SCOTUS 1982)

A

Schools must provide assistance to ensure handicapped children benefit adequately from school services, but not maximum assistance to fully commensurate them vs. non-handicapped children

28
Q

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (SCOTUS 1984)

A

Medical services that are not for diagnostic/evaluative purposes may qualify as a “related service” that school districts must provide

29
Q

In re: Gault (SCOTUS 1966)

A

Juvenile defendants have same rights of due process afforded to adults

30
Q

Roper v. Simmons (SCOTUS 1984)

A

Execution of defendants under 18 at time of the crime is cruel and unusual punishment.

31
Q

Frye v. United States (DC COA 1923)

A

Expert testimony permissible as long as opinions deduced from methods generally accepted in that scientific field

32
Q

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (SCOTUS 1993)

A

Admissability of scientific testimony not based on general acceptance, but by trial judge’s determination of reliability and relevance

33
Q

Kumho Tire v. Carmichael (SCOTUS 1999)

A

Daubert reliability and relevance standards apply to all expert testimony, not just specific techniques

34
Q

Frendak v. U.S. (DC COA)

A

Court may not impose insanity defense on individual who knowingly/voluntarily/intelligently rejects that defense

35
Q

Foucha v. Louisiana (SCOTUS 1992)

A

NGRI acquitees can only be held for dangerousness in context of mental illness, not PD

36
Q

Clark v. Arizona (SCOTUS 2006)

A

States can have own insanity standards, and M’Naghten doesn’t have to be basis

37
Q

Lake v. Cameron (DC COA 1966)

A

Court should investigate appropriate less restrictive alternatives if involuntarily committed patients petition for release

38
Q

Lessard v. Schmidt (Wis Dist Ct 1972)

A

Individuals can only be involuntarily committed if they represent extreme likelihood of immediate harm, and they are afforded the same rights as criminal defendants

39
Q

O’Connor v. Donaldson (SCOTUS 1975)

A

State cannot confine non-dangerous individuals who are capable of living with willing and able family or friends

40
Q

Roy v. Hartogs (NY SC 1976)

A

Sexual acts with patients qualify as malpractice

41
Q

Clites v. Iowa (IA COA 1982)

A

Overuse of antipsychotics and restraints, especially without informed consent, qualifies as malpractice.

42
Q

Atkins v. Virginia (SCOTUS 2002)

A

Execution of intellectually disabled criminals violates the 8th amendment.

43
Q

Baxstrom v. Herold (SCOTUS 1966)

A

Holding a convicted prisoner in a corrections hospital beyond the term of their sentence without jury review violates equal protection.

44
Q

Panetti v. Quarterman (SCOTUS 2007)

A

Prisoners can submit a late claim of incompetency to be executed, and their mental illness should be considered even if they can state the facts of the case.

45
Q

Allen v. Illinois (SCOTUS 1986)

A

Proceedings aimed at treatment are civil in nature and do not require the full rights of criminal proceedings.

46
Q

Kansas v. Hendricks (SCOTUS 1996)

A

Confinement acts meet due process so long as they require sufficient evidence of past behavior and mental abnormality, and they remain civil procedures so long as they offer release following resolution of dangerousness.

47
Q

McCune v. Lyle (SCOTUS 2002)

A

Incentives towards self-incrimination do not violate 5th amendment protection from compelled self-incrimination.

48
Q

Colorado v. Connelly (SCOTUS 1986)

A

The Due Process Clause protects against government coercion, not complete immunity from statements made while mentally ill.

49
Q

North Carolina v. Alford (SCOTUS 1970)

A

A guilty plea made solely to avoid the death penalty is valid.

50
Q

Kansas v. Crane (SCOTUS 2002)

A

Civil commitment for dangerous sexual predatory behavior requires some lack-of-control determination.

51
Q

State v. Hurd (SC NJ 1980)

A

I can’t believe we have to say this, but no hypnotism.

52
Q

Dillon v. Legg (SC CA 1968)

A

Zone of danger includes emotional injury, not just physical injury.

53
Q

Robinson v. California (SC CA 1962)

A

State can only prosecute for illegal acts, not the status of addiction.

54
Q

Tarasoff v. Regents of UC (CA SC 1976)

A

Therapists have a duty to protect third parties based on a patient’s threats.

55
Q

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (SCOTUS 1986)

A

A hostile work environment created by sexual harassment qualifies as sexual discrimination, regardless of economic or tangible ramifications.

56
Q

Olmstead v. L.C., by Jonathan Zimring (SCOTUS 1999)

A

Financial constraints do not absolutely justify preventing patients from accessing more integrated treatment settings when medically appropriate.

Landmark Cases (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions