Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Savin v. Savin, 51 So. 2d 41.

20 citing documents.

Wynn v. Wynn 513 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Bruner v. Bruner 356 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
(1951) was cited in Hermes as authority.
Hermes v. Hermes 287 So. 2d 789 La. 1973
19 , ; , , and the cases therein cited.'" In Hayes v. Hayes, 225 La.
Dubois v. Falgout 268 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
3rd Cir., 1961); , (1951), and cases cited therein.
Thomas v. Thomas 200 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
But, as stated in Savin v. Savin, supra [ , ], '* * * for us to declare that they did, we must draw upon our imagination, and rule that whenever a man and a woman have the opportunity to, they do commit adultery.’ This we cannot and should not do in the absence of other circumstances of such a nature as to make the conclusion fairly certain th
Karl v. Karl 191 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Hayes v. Hayes, supra; , (1951).
Schroeder v. Schroeder 184 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
485 , , , Stevens v. Stevens, La.App., , , 45.
Moosa v. Abdalla 178 So. 2d 273 La. 1965
v. Boulware, supra, a well-reasoned decision rejecting contentions similar to those made here, the Court of Appeal stated: “Our examination of the statutes and jurisprudence of our State with respect to the privilege between physician and patient fails to disclose any basis for the exclusion of such testimony in a civil case.” To sustain the privilege, , .
Moosa v. Abdalla 173 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Although the legislature has not expressly provided a patient-doctor privilege in civil cases, , (1951), a divorce suit brought by the husband based on adultery of his wife.
Robicheaux v. Robicheaux 165 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Harris v. Harris, supra; , .
Antony v. Antony 160 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Pennison v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. 154 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
which was a suit for divorce by the husband against the wife on the charge of adultery, in which the district court, upon objection of the wife, refused to permit her doctor to testify about her physical condition, on the ground it was privileged.
Hennigan v. Hennigan 151 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
But, as stated in Savin v. Savin, supra [ , ], ‘ * * * for us to declare that they did, we must draw upon our imagination, and rule that whenever a man and a woman have the opportunity to, they do commit adultery’.
Bosch v. Girradot 143 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
1099 , ; , ; Meyer v. Hackler, 219 La.
Baasen v. Baasen 133 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
1099 , ; , ; Meyer v. Hackler, 219 La.
Pilgrim v. Pilgrim 102 So. 2d 864 La. 1958
1099 , ; , ; Meyer v. Hackler, 219 La.
Kendrick v. Kendrick 96 So. 2d 12 La. 1957
474 ; , ; Harris v. Harris, 228 La.
Kendrick v. Kendrick 96 So. 2d 12 La. 1957
474 ; , ; Harris v. Harris, 228 La.
Harris v. Harris 81 So. 2d 705 La. 1955
It follows that for us to hold in plaintiff’s favor we must ( , ) “ *.
Hayes v. Hayes 73 So. 2d 179 La. 1954
1099 , , , , Meyer v. Hackler, 219 La.