Legal Opinion
Baker v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 7, 1939No. 27169PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMyebs, J.
The principal question for decision is whether the testimony of-the plaintiff, Victor Baker, on direct examination constituted a waiver which would permit the admission of a physician’s testimony otherwise privileged under Section 11494, General Code. That section reads in part as follows:
“The following persons shall not testify in certain respects:
“An attorney, concerning a communication made to him by his client in that relation, or his advice to his client; or a physician, concerning a communication made to him by his patient in that relation, or his advice to his patient. But the attorney…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Spitzer v. StillingsOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Harpman v. Devine, Recr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
- State v. WellsOhio Supreme Court · 1842
3Cited by21 opinions
- State v. SmorgalaOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. BrunsonOhio Supreme Court · 2022
- Diann Jewell v. Holzer Hospital Foundation, Inc. Dr. Raymond Jennings Dr. Daniel H. Whitely Dr. David Evans, Holzer Clinic, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- State v. DressOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. KavlichOhio Court of Appeals · 1986
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.