Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 924 So. 2d 112.

27 citing documents.

Mark Stephen Jaskot and Diane M. Robertson Jaskot v. Lyle K. Doublet and Riverside Inspections, LLC La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
Mary Fisher and Robert Hamilton v. the Town of Boyce La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
3 Cir. 2/16/05), reversed on other grounds, 05-576 (La.2/22/06), (found abuse of discretion to allow testimony of plaintiff’s treating physician who accepted documents from, engaged in telephone conversations with, and met with defense counsel).
Fisher v. Town of Boyce 250 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
2/22/06), (found abuse of discretion to allow testimony of plaintiff's treating physician who accepted documents from, engaged in telephone conversations with, and met with defense counsel).
Davis v. Nola Home Construction, L.L.C. 222 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
White v. Cox Operating, LLC 229 So. 3d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Richardson Wholesale, LLC v. Dix 214 So. 3d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Spencer v. Chevron Corp. 202 So. 3d 1055 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Jackson v. Pfeifer 152 So. 3d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“Under the manifest error standard, a factual finding cannot be set aside unless the appellate court finds that it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 06-0756, p. 5 (La.2/22/06), .
Marshall Troglen v. Hydraulic Well Control La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Troglen v. Hydraulic Well Control 149 So. 3d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Co., (La.2/22/06), .
Claudine Labarrera, Et Ux. v. Boyd Gaming Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
2/22/06), and Ernst v. Taylor, 08-1289 (La.App.
Labarrera v. Boyd Gaming Corp. 132 So. 3d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 2/16/05) , , rev’d on other grounds, 05-756 (La.2/22/06), , and Ernst v. Taylor, 08-1289 (La.App.
Cece Sloan v. Renee Mouton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2/22/06), we found that the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of one of the plaintiff’s treating physicians who accepted documents from defense counsel, engaged in telephone conversations, and met with defense counsel.
Sloan v. Mouton 82 So. 3d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 2/16/05) , , reversed on Jones Act negligence per se issue, 05-756 (La.2/22/06), , we found that the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of one of the plaintiffs treating physicians who accepted documents from defense counsel, engaged in telephone conversations, and met with defense counsel.
Yee v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. 25 So. 3d 872 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 2005-0756 (La.2/22/06), .
Howard v. Union Carbide Corp. 21 So. 3d 1084 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 05-0756 (La.2/22/06), (Citation omitted).
Richard v. BAYOU LAFOURCHE FRESH WATER DISTRICT 9 So. 3d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Janell Ernst v. Dr. Flynn A. Taylor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
2/22/06), this court examined the health care provider-patient privilege found in Article 510.
Ernst v. Taylor 17 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 2/16/05) , , writ granted, 05-756 (La.5/13/05), , writ reversed on other grounds, 05-756 (La.2/22/06), , this court examined the health care provider-patient privilege found in Article 510.
Wood v. American National Property & Casualty Ins. Co. 1 So. 3d 764 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3 Cir. 2/16/05) , , rev'd on other grounds, 05-0756 (La.2/22/06), .
Colleen Wood v. American National Property & Casualty Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
2/22/06), 1 There, in evaluating a doctor’s ex parte communication regarding a patient’s privileged medical information, we reasoned that, “the exception to the privilege can only be effectuated through testimony at trial or by the use of proper discovery methods.” Id.
Harold Tolson v. Omega Protein, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Ovie Reeves, Jr. v. F. Miller & Sons, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
2/22/06), Davis v. Ensco Offshore Co., 06- 197 (La.App.
Reeves v. F. Miller & Sons, Inc. 967 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 05-756 (La.2/22/06), ; Davis v. ENSCO Offshore Co., 06-197 (La.App.
Coutee v. Beurlot 964 So. 2d 304 La. 2007
See Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Company, 05-0756 (La.2/22/06); .
Trent Davis v. Ensco Offshore Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2/22/06), the supreme court stated: Louisiana courts of appeal apply the manifest error standard of review in general maritime and Jones Act cases.
Davis v. ENSCO Offshore Co. 931 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
LAW AND DISCUSSION In Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 05-756, pp. 5-6 (La.2/22/06), , the supreme court stated: Louisiana courts of appeal apply the manifest error standard of review in general maritime and Jones Act cases.