Gautreaux privilege (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

Gautreaux privilege in Louisiana

5 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1987–1999 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Schulte v. Prudential Insurance Co. of Americagreen
ca3 · 1998 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999In re Prudential, 133 F.3d at 233-34 (footnotes omitted). | ipFor the same reasons as those expressed by the In re Prudential court, we find that the insurance business exception does not apply to Gautreaux’s claim.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Darby green
la · 1981
2 sentences

1991Upholding the trial court's decision to allow the invocation of the privilege in this fashion, we held that "[i]n this factual context, no purpose would have been served in requiring a question by question assertion of Gautreaux's privilege." 403 So.2d at 48-49 .

1987Upholding the trial court's decision to allow the invocation of the privilege in this fashion, we held that "[i]n this factual context, no purpose would have been served in requiring a question by question assertion of Gautreaux's privilege." 403 So.2d at 48-49 .

21987–1991
State v. Edwards green
la · 1982
2 sentences

1991In State v. Edwards, 419 So.2d 881 (La. 1981), we held that a question by question assertion of the privilege was not necessary in the case of two witnesses charged with first degree murder, the same crime for which the defendant was being tried.

1987In State v. Edwards, 419 So.2d 881 (La. 1981), we held that a question by question assertion of the privilege was not necessary in the case of two witnesses charged with first degree murder, the same crime for which the defendant was being tried.

21987–1991
Charles D. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc. green
ca5 · 1997
1 sentence

1999Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 1997), held that a Jones Act seaman is required to act as a reasonable seaman under like circumstances and that a Jones Act employer is required to act as a reasonable employer under like circumstances.

11999–1999
Rollins v. Causey neutral
lactapp · 1983
1 sentence

1995Just as a "step" by any party within the five year period prevents abandonment as to all defendants including those not solidarily liable, Rollins v. Causey, 427 So.2d 1291 (La.App. 2 Cir.1983), when no "step" is taken the abandonment is effective as to all defendants.

11995–1995

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check