Dietz v. Doe

4 Citing cases

  1. Dietz v. Doe

    131 Wn. 2d 835 (Wash. 1997)   Cited 55 times
    Adopting the same eight-factor test

    The plaintiffs sought review of the denial of the order, which was granted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the motion. Dietz v. Doe, 80 Wn. App. 785, 911 P.2d 1025 (1996). We granted review.

  2. Magney v. Truc Pham

    195 Wash. 2d 795 (Wash. 2020)   Cited 8 times

    ΒΆ10 Whether a privilege has been waived is reviewed de novo. Steel v. Olympia Early Learning Ctr., 195 Wash. App. 811, 822, 381 P.3d 111 (2016) (waiver of attorney-client privilege reviewed de novo (citing Pappas v. Holloway , 114 Wash.2d 198, 205, 787 P.2d 30 (1990) )); Lodis , 172 Wash. App. at 854, 292 P.3d 779 (waiver of psychologist-client privilege reviewed de novo (citing Dietz v. Doe , 80 Wash. App. 785, 788, 911 P.2d 1025 (1996) )).

  3. Dietz v. Doe

    922 P.2d 97 (Wash. 1996)

    September 4, 1996. Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, March 8, 1996, 80 Wn. App. 785. Granted September 4, 1996.

  4. Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc.

    172 Wn. App. 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 65 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding WLAD's opposition clause only requires an employee "to confront with hard or searching questions or objections" or "to offer resistance to, contend against, or forcefully withstand" unlawful discrimination

    But, whether Lodis waived the privilege is a question of law we review de novo. See Dietz v. Doe, 80 Wash.App. 785, 788, 911 P.2d 1025 (1996), rev'd,131 Wash.2d 835, 935 P.2d 611 (1997).