Legal Opinion

Perry v. Hannagan

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1932No. Docket No. 181, Calendar No. 35,984PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

In my opinion, the testimony of Dr. McIntyre that, when defendant was brought to his office for first aid treatment for the cuts and bruises he had received in the collision, he "noticed an odor of liquor on his breath," was admissible. The statute (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14216), quoted by Mr. Justice WIEST, prohibits a physician or surgeon from disclosing —

"any information which he may have acquired in attending any patient in his professional character, and which informationwas necessary to enable him to prescribe for such patient as aphysician, or to do any act for him as a surgeon."

As here…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. DeFranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Scripps v. FosterMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Campau v. NorthMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Lincoln v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. TownsendSupreme Court of Kansas · 1937
  2. Yager v. YagerMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Mulvena v. AlexanderMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Rumbos v. SingosMichigan Supreme Court · 1950

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API