City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court
Supreme Court of California
231 P.2d 26 (Cal. 1951)
James Hession brought an action for personal injuries against the City and County of San Francisco (City) (plaintiff). Prior to that trial, upon a specific request of Hession’s attorneys, Dr. Joseph Catton gave Hession a neurological and psychiatric exam. Dr. Catton was not Hession’s physician and the sole purpose of the examination was to give Hession’s attorneys information for the lawsuit. At that trial, Dr. Catton refused to answer the City’s questions about Hession’s condition on the grounds of privilege. The City asked the superior court to order Dr. Catton to answer the questions. The superior court refused to do so. The City appealed, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the superior court to order Dr. Catton to answer the questions.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Traynor, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.