Legal Vidhiya
  • Home
  • Case Laws
    • Supreme Court
      • 2010-2011
      • 2012-2013
      • 2011-2012
      • 2013-2014
      • 2015-2016
      • 2014-2015
      • 2016-2017
      • 2017-2018
      • 2018-2019
      • 2019-2020
      • 2020-2021
      • 2021-2022
      • 2022-2023
      • 2023-2024
      • 2024-2025
  • Article
  • Law As A Career!
  • Contents
    • Advocates Act, 1961
    • Administrative Law
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
    • Banking Law
    • Business Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Company Law
    • Criminology
    • Code of Civil Procedure
    • Code of Criminal Procedure
    • Cyber Law
    • Family Law
      • Muslim Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Law of Evidence
    • Law of Tort
    • Human Rights
    • Indian Contract Act, 1872
    • International Law
    • Indian Partnership Act, 1932
    • Intellectual Property Rights
    • Interpretation of Statues
    • Jurisprudence
    • Juvenile Justice Act
    • Medical Law
    • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
    • Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace
    • MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
    • NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881
    • Property Law
    • Right to Information
    • Taxation Law
    • Trademark Law
    • SPACE LAW
    • SPORTS LAW
    • Unlawful activities prevention act, 1967 (UAPA)
  • Bare Act
  • OPPORTUNITY
    • Internship
    • Moot
    • Call For Paper
    • Debate
    • Quiz
    • Workshop/Seminar/Webinar
    • Get Published at Legal Vidhiya
  • About
    • HONORARY BOARD
    • Our Team
      • FOUNDER’S
      • Executive Committee
      • Core Team
  • Youtube
  • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Code of Conduct
    • Disclaimer Policy
  • Contact Us

551 P.2D CAL.1976.

TARASOFF VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORINA, 551 P.2D CAL.1976.
Case Laws

TARASOFF VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORINA, 551 P.2D CAL.1976.

Citation 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14. Date of Judgment July,1976. Court Supreme Court Of Califorina. Case Type Psychologists have a right of ‘duty to protect’ if any individual is at risk from their client’s future action. Appellant Vitali Tarasoff. Respondent Regents of university of Read more

By Admin, 3 yearsSeptember 2, 2023 ago

Visitor Count
3998107
Users Today : 2175
Click Here To Join Our WhatsApp Grouplogo

Hestia | Developed by ThemeIsle