In re Jones

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Jones

765 N.E.2d 878, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1411

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 2002

Docket02-176

StatusPublished

This text of 765 N.E.2d 878 (In re Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Jones, 765 N.E.2d 878, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1411 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Franklin App. No. 01AP-376. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry dated January 22, 2002:

“In dependency/neglect cases, do the statutory privileges set forth in former R.C. 4732.19 and R.C. 2317.02(G) apply to the reports and/or testimony of a psychologist and a licensed independent social worker when such testimony and report were generated for forensic purposes only and do not concern communications made in the course of treatment?”

F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., dissent.

The conflict cases are In re Layne (June 25, 2001), Stark App. No. 2001CA00104, unreported, 2001 WL 1773763; In re Daywalt (Mar. 19, 2001), Stark App. Nos. 2000CA332 and 2000CA355, unreported; and In re Kyle (Dec. 1, 2000), Portage App. No. 2000-P-0014, unreported, 2000 WL 1774155.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Franklin App. No. 01AP-376. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry dated January 22, 2002:

“In dependency/neglect cases, do the statutory privileges set forth in former R.C. 4732.19 and R.C. 2317.02(G) apply to the reports and/or testimony of a psychologist and a licensed independent social worker when such testimony and report were generated for forensic purposes only and do not concern communications made in the course of treatment?”

F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., dissent.

The conflict cases are In re Layne (June 25, 2001), Stark App. No. 2001CA00104, unreported, 2001 WL 1773763; In re Daywalt (Mar. 19, 2001), Stark App. Nos. 2000CA332 and 2000CA355, unreported; and In re Kyle (Dec. 1, 2000), Portage App. No. 2000-P-0014, unreported, 2000 WL 1774155.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

765 N.E.2d 878, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jones-ohio-2002.