MOORE

v.

MOORE

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Archer, 486 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1973)
  …the bill was adopted in substantially its present form.10 [*680] It would go beyond the proper exercise of judicial power for courts to confine the Travel Act to its title, see Fraser v. United States, 145 F. 2d 189, 142 (6 Cir. 1944), cert, denied, 324 U.S. 849, 65 S.Ct. 684, 89 L.Ed. 1409 (1945), or even to the precise purpose stated to Congress by the Attorney General. Nonetheless, the question remains whether the defendants here have used a facility in interstate or foreign commerce, for the purposes l…
• Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970)
  …to confine itself to the undeveloped law of the state in which the district court sat, but drew upon other authorities which might cast light on the policies behind the privilege. Fraser v. United States, 145 F. 2d 139 (6th Cir. 1944), cert. denied, 324 U.S. 849, 65 S.Ct. 684, 89 L.Ed. 1409 (1945). Our conclusion is supported by the thrust of recent Fifth Circuit decisions in diversity cases. Twice we have held “outcome-determinative” state rules of evidence not controlling in diversity cases, relying on t…
• United States v. Figueroa-Paz, 468 F.2d 1055 (9th Cir. 1972)
  …husband’s objection); 8 Wig-more, Evidence § 2241 (1961). Another privilege protects marital communications. It belongs to the communicating spouse, and likewise may be waived. Fraser v. United States (6 Cir.- 1944) 145 F. 2d 139, 144, cert, den., 324 U.S. 849, 65 S.Ct. 684, 89 L.Ed. 1409 (1945); Peek, supra, 321 F. 2d at 943. Appellant failed to object to his wife’s testimony as to his communications when it was offered. Fraser and Peek, supra, stand for the proposition that the communications privilege…