Tucker v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Tucker v. State

808 So. 2d 348, 2002 La. LEXIS 532, 2002 WL 332163

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 8, 2002

DocketNo. 2001-CC-3164

StatusPublished

This text of 808 So. 2d 348 (Tucker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tucker v. State, 808 So. 2d 348, 2002 La. LEXIS 532, 2002 WL 332163 (La. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Tucker, Ursula et al.; Tucker, Edward James; — Plaintiffs; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 93-11691; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2001-C-1805.

Granted. Relator is entitled to obtain production of the requested records, subject to the provision that any personal information which would identify the patient be redacted from the records prior to production. See Speer v. Whitecloud, 99-1879 (La.10/15/99), 744 So.2d 1283. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for subpoena duces tecum is reversed. Case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

TRAYLOR, J., dissents from the Court’s action. KNOLL, J., dissents from the Court’s action. WEIMER, J., dissents from the Court’s action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Tucker, Ursula et al.; Tucker, Edward James; — Plaintiffs; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 93-11691; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2001-C-1805.

Granted. Relator is entitled to obtain production of the requested records, subject to the provision that any personal information which would identify the patient be redacted from the records prior to production. See Speer v. Whitecloud, 99-1879 (La.10/15/99), 744 So.2d 1283. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for subpoena duces tecum is reversed. Case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

TRAYLOR, J., dissents from the Court’s action. KNOLL, J., dissents from the Court’s action. WEIMER, J., dissents from the Court’s action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 So. 2d 348, 2002 La. LEXIS 532, 2002 WL 332163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-state-la-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack