Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Waldo v. Morrison, 58 So. 2d 210.
-
Judy Lyons v. Ann Knight
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 1962); So.2d 210 (1952).
- Lyons v. Knight 65 So. 3d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
-
Costello v. Hardy
864 So. 2d 129
La. 2004
(1952) (quoting Gosserand v. Gumbel, 154 La.
- Lincecum v. AdServe, Inc. 417 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
- Freeman v. Cooper 414 So. 2d 355 La. 1982
-
Wattigny v. Lambert
408 So. 2d 1126
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
(1952); Bienvenu v. Angelle, 254 La.
- Union Service & Maintenance Co. v. Powell 393 So. 2d 94 La. 1980
-
Freeman v. Cooper
390 So. 2d 1355
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
[8] , ; Sabine Tram Co. v. Jurgens, 143 La.
-
Adserv Corp. v. Lincecum
385 So. 2d 432
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(1952); Lescale v. Schwartz, 118 La.
-
Harrison v. Uniroyal, Inc.
366 So. 2d 983
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Waldo v. Morrison * * * [ , (1952)]."
-
Lees v. Smith
363 So. 2d 974
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
3 Cir. 1971), writ refused, 1971; , (1952).
-
Calvert v. Simon
311 So. 2d 13
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
872 (1918); , , 32 A.L.R.2d 419 ; (La.App.
-
Viera v. Kwik Home Services, Inc.
266 So. 2d 732
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
[3] , (1952); 50 Am.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander, § 231 (1970); 32 A.L.R.2d 418 .
-
Foster v. McClain
251 So. 2d 179
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
(1952); Bienvenu v. Angelle, 254 La.
-
Jones v. Davis
233 So. 2d 310
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
797, 799 ; , , 32 A.L.R.2d 419 .
-
Russo v. Kelly
228 So. 2d 736
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
The basis for defendants’ , , 32 A.L.R.2d 419 (1952).
-
Cormier v. Blake
198 So. 2d 139
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
852 (1923); , , 32 A.L.R.2d 419 (1952).
-
Miller, Smith and Champagne v. Capital City Press
142 So. 2d 462
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
32 A.L.R.2d 419 , reaffirmed the general principles laid down in the Kennedy case.
-
Giordano v. Tullier
139 So. 2d 15
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
852 , , 32 A.L.R.2d 419 .
-
Sunseri v. Shapiro
138 So. 2d 661
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Oakes v. Alexander, La.App., ; , , 32 A.L.R.2d 419 ; Lescale v. Joseph Schwartz Co., 116 La.
-
Oakes v. Alexander
135 So. 2d 513
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Finally on this issue, in deference to counsel's zealous development thereof, we have considered the authorities cited in brief and find it necessary to comment only with respect to counsel's observation that the Supreme Court of Louisiana had noted "* * * `the common-law rule of absolute privilege' which has been adopted by the Federal Court.", , , 32 A.L. R.2d 419.