§Why CasetextPricing

LEWIS v. S.C. (MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA)

Real Party in Interest, Medical Board of California, Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

61 Cited authorities

  1. Illinois v. Gates

    462 U.S. 213 (1983)   Cited 18,906 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a warrant may issue only when probable cause exists under the "totality-of-the-circumstances"

  2. Terry v. Ohio

    392 U.S. 1 (1968)   Cited 38,116 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop

  3. Katz v. United States

    389 U.S. 347 (1967)   Cited 12,445 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth would "ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication"

  4. Rakas v. Illinois

    439 U.S. 128 (1978)   Cited 6,372 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the determinative question is "whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place"

  5. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn

    489 U.S. 602 (1989)   Cited 2,191 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding the government's "interest in regulating the conduct of railroad employees to ensure safety, like its ... operation of a government office, school, or prison" justified subjecting employees engaged in safety-sensitive tasks to warrantless drug and alcohol testing

  6. Beck v. Ohio

    379 U.S. 89 (1964)   Cited 5,510 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior criminal record and officer's knowledge of what defendant looked like, despite the alleged tip of an unnamed informant, do not give rise to probable cause

  7. Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton

    515 U.S. 646 (1995)   Cited 1,217 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that administrators may have a “compelling” interest in keeping drugs out of schools because “[s]chool years are the time when the physical, psychological, and addictive effects of drugs are most severe”

  8. Jaffee v. Redmond

    518 U.S. 1 (1996)   Cited 1,167 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence"

  9. Griswold v. Connecticut

    381 U.S. 479 (1965)   Cited 3,300 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional state law that criminalized the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception"

  10. Whalen v. Roe

    429 U.S. 589 (1977)   Cited 1,725 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York's collection of prescription records in a computerized database did not violate patients' and physicians' right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

  11. Section 3371 - Confidentiality of certain records, reports, and information

    N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 3371   Cited 4 times

    1. No person, who has knowledge by virtue of his or her office of the identity of a particular patient or research subject, a manufacturing process, a trade secret or a formula shall disclose such knowledge, or any report or record thereof, except: (a) to another person employed by the department, for purposes of executing provisions of this article; (b) pursuant to judicial subpoena or court order in a criminal investigation or proceeding; (c) to an agency, department of government, or official

  12. Section 431.966 - [Renumbered]

    ORS § 431.966   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    ORS 431.966 Amended by 2015 Ch. 736, § 74, eff. 7/20/2015, op. 1/1/2016. Amended by 2013 Ch. 550, § 4, eff. 1/1/2014. 2009 c. 799, § 4; 2011 c. 720, § 186

  13. Section 21-2A-06 - Prescription monitoring data

    Md. Code, Health-Gen. § 21-2A-06   Cited 1 times

    (a) Prescription monitoring data: (1) Are confidential and privileged, and not subject to discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion in civil litigation; (2) Are not public records; and (3) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (f) of this section or as otherwise provided by law, may not be disclosed to any person. (b) The Program shall disclose prescription monitoring data, in accordance with regulations adopted by the Secretary, to: (1) A prescriber, or a licensed health

  14. Section 17.30.200 - Controlled substance prescription database

    Alaska Stat. § 17.30.200

    (a) The controlled substance prescription database is established in the Board of Pharmacy. The purpose of the database is to contain data as described in this section regarding every prescription for a schedule II, III, or IV controlled substance under federal law dispensed in the state to a person other than under the circumstances described in (u) of this section. (b) The pharmacist-in-charge of each licensed or registered pharmacy, regarding each schedule II, III, or IV controlled substance under

  15. Section 16-13-60 - Privacy and confidentiality; use of data; security program

    Ga. Code § 16-13-60

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (c), (c.1), and (d) of this Code section, prescription information submitted pursuant to Code Section 16-13-59 shall be confidential and shall not be subject to open records requirements as contained in Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50. (b) The department, in conjunction with the board, shall establish and maintain strict procedures to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of patients, prescribers, and patient and prescriber information collected

  16. Section 152.126 - PRESCRIPTION MONITORING PROGRAM

    Minn. Stat. § 152.126

    Subdivision 1.Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the terms defined in this subdivision have the meanings given. (b) "Board" means the Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy established under chapter 151. (c) "Controlled substances" means those substances listed in section 152.02, subdivisions 3 to 6, and those substances defined by the board pursuant to section 152.02, subdivisions 7, 8, and 12. For the purposes of this section, controlled substances includes butalbital and gabapentin. (d)

  17. Section 164.512 - Uses and disclosures for which an authorization or opportunity to agree or object is not required

    45 C.F.R. § 164.512   Cited 1,290 times   114 Legal Analyses
    Approving disclosure to health oversight agency of protected health information to determine eligibility for government benefit programs

  18. Section 164.520 - Notice of privacy practices for protected health information

    45 C.F.R. § 164.520   Cited 9 times   43 Legal Analyses

    (a)Standard: notice of privacy practices - (1)Right to notice. Except as provided by paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section, an individual has a right to adequate notice of the uses and disclosures of protected health information that may be made by the covered entity, and of the individual's rights and the covered entity's legal duties with respect to protected health information. (2)Exception for group health plans. (i) An individual enrolled in a group health plan has a right to notice: (A) From