Tarasoff V. Regents Case Study

For instance, California courts have found special relationships in Ellis v. D'Angelo (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 310, 253 P.2d 675 (upholding a cause of action against parents who failed to warn a babysitter of the violent proclivities of their child), Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, 73 Cal.Rptr. 240, 447 P.2d 352 (upholding suit against the state for failure to warn foster parents of the dangerous tendencies of their ward), Morgan v. County of Yuba (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 938, 41 Cal.Rptr. 508 (sustaining cause of action against a sheriff who had promised to warn decedent before releasing a dangerous prisoner, but failed to do so). (Tarasoff, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 436, fn. 9, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334.) And in Tarasoff, a therapist was told by his patient that he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. The therapist and his supervisors predicted the patient presented a serious danger of violence. In fact he did, for he carried out his threat. The court held the patient-therapist relationship was enough to create a duty to exercise reasonable care to

The responsibility to protect and obligation to warn: Duty to protect is the moral liability of the counselor to protect the client from self-harm. Whereas, the requirement to inform is a salutation where the advocate has a legal obligation to warn third parties of predictable danger caused

The third case, Daniel RR v. State Board of Education, was documented in United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit in June 12, 1989. This case discussed whether a child with disability is given a right to receive mainstream education.

Petitioner Joseph A. Kennedy has filed suit against the Bremerton Board of Education in opposition of the Bremerton Board of Education’s actions placing Kennedy on administrative leave as a result of his religious expression on the football field. Kennedy has been a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington for eight years and has a reputation of being a popular and well-respected coach. After being strictly told by the school administration to stop praying on the 50 yard line after football games and ceasing to follow their request, Kennedy’s was placed on administrative leave. Kennedy is an active Christian who chooses to briefly, privately engage in prayer at the closing of each football game. He believes that he is thanking

The duty to warn and protect is the result of the Supreme Court case Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California. (Gehring 1982) In this case the courts decided that a psychotherapist having knowledge of the

The court held the psychologist responsible for the murder of his girlfriend and for not informing of the intent to harm. I believe Justice Tobriner said it best, “the protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.”

I selected the article “Duty to Warn and Protect: Not in Texas” for review, as it applies to the state in which I reside. The article cites Texas Health and Safety Codes, based on a 1999 Texas Supreme Court ruling that states counselors do not have a duty to warn or protect. Having a duty to warn and protect is defined as protecting clients or others from perceived harm (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014). An example would be that a client tells their counselor in a confidential session that he is considering stabbing his ex-girlfriend. The duty to warn would mean the counselor should notify authorities and the ex-girlfriend thus breaking confidentiality. The duty to protect would be to admit client to a facility for the client to be assessed for a propensity for violence towards the ex-girlfriend. This became important after a 1969 incident where a counselor, had a client expressed harm towards a girl and the counselor contacted the authorities, yet never contacted the girl, who was subsequently killed by the client a few months later, known as the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014).

The US Supreme Court decision in Domokos v. Board of Education is an example of how the court defined an athletic director as a public figure. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, appellant Frank Domokos was the athletic director at Mentor high school. Through his tenure, the school was responsible for hosting the OHSAA postseason scholastic athletic competition whereby Frank Domoskos was appointed by OHSAA as tournament director for the girl’s basketball team and the boy’s wrestling team. In accordance with his duties as tournament director, Domokos opened two bank accounts, one for the wrestling team and one for the basketball team. However, the accounts weren’t used for any Mentor high school activities. Rather, Domokos mixed tournament money with

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer

The topic I’ll be discussing will be the biasedness in media about a particular topic, the US Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Alexander vs. Holmes County Board of Education. The case involved a previous Supreme Court ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education, where they gave schools to desegregate public schools “with all deliberate speed.” 15 years passed and school districts were still segregated, so the courts gave them till the beginning of the next year, 1970. This gave some schools a very abrupt shock as they had to conform to the decision. As something that opinionated, it allows news media to explore and write about such a topic.

The ethical dilemma I wish to explore is The Duty to Warn. This refers to the duty of a counselor, therapist to breach one of the most important bonds between a client and a therapist; the law of confidentiality. The therapist has the right to break confidentiality without the fear of being brought up for legal action. If the therapist believes that the client poses a danger, or is a threat to himself, someone else, or society as a whole, the therapist must decide how serious of a threat the client may be, then if he decides it’s a serious issue, he must notify the person in danger, which would e the third party, or the police, or other people who may be in the

Finally in 1990, in Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the California Supreme Court held that “human cell lines are patentable because long-term adaptation and growth of human tissue and cells in a culture is difficult – often considered an art…. It is this inventive effort that patent law rewards, not the discovery of naturally occurring raw materials.” The cells, taken from Mr. Moore and later used for research had to be “manipulated by man” so they could be useful research tools. The California Supreme Court’s holding, rejected Moore’s allegations that he owned the cell line and the products derived from it were inconsistent with the patent, which constitutes an authoritative determination that the cell line is the product

Tatiana Tarasoff, a student at the University of California, was murdered by Prosenjit Poddar. They both met on campus and went on several dates, but Tarasoff decided to put an end to their relationship and rejected him afterward. Poddar soon became obsessed with her and could not accept their separation, he went through an emotional crisis which was the reason why he was brought to the psychological counseling where he met Dr. Lawrence Moore, his therapist. Later, Poddar confessed his desire to take revenge and kill Tarasoff. He kept this idea throughout the several sessions they had together and Dr. Lawrence Moore admitted that if he stayed consistent with the death threats, he would have no other choice than hospitalize

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case in 1978 explored the issue surrounding a young white man’s rejection from UC Davis’ Medical School when students with lower grades than him were accepted through a minority benefits program. The young man, Allan Bakke, was rejected in two successive years before filing suit in the Superior Court of Yolo County, arguing that he had to be accepted to the school since those with grades lower than him had been accepted through the benefits program. The school claimed that the goal of their minority benefits program was to further diversify their campus. The program was intended for minority or disadvantaged students, but soon became entirely racially based, which was evident, since no white students were ever accepted into the program, regardless of any disadvantaged background they may have had. The school had lower expectations for the applicants in the benefits program, so some of the students accepted through that program were less qualified to attend the school than some of those who were rejected through the regular applicant process. Bakke was one of those rejected applicants, and felt that his rejection was unconstitutional according to both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The school argued that they were encouraging diversity and understanding with the benefits program, but the Superior Court of Yolo County ultimately decided that the