Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Driscoll v. Stucker, 893 So. 2d 32.

99 citing documents.

Zepporiah Edmonds v. Department of Public Works La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Angela Expose v. Rouses Enterprises, LLC D/B/A Rouses Markets La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Everette D. Mayo, Jr., Et Ux v. Lagniappe Willow Lake, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
1/19/05), set forth the “uncalled witness” rule: “An adverse presumption exists when a party having control of a favorable witness fails to call him or her to testify, even though the presumption is rebuttable and is tempered by the fact that a party need only put on enough evidence to prove the case.” Lagniappe
John Preston v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and Pac Housing Group, LLC La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
1/19/05), (citation omitted).
In Re: Dana Broussard Medical Review Panel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
1/19/05), and its corresponding adverse presumption because neither Dr. Munshi nor Dr. Trawick testified at the hearing on the exceptions of prescription.
Clayton Cangelosi Versus Jefferson Parish Council Jefferson Parish Council Chair Scott Walker And In Person: Byron Lee (Not … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
Jayson Grammar, Jr. Versus Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
Sanctuary Capital, LLC, on Behalf of North Louisiana Bidco, LLC v. Richard D. Cloud, James Randolph Garner, and … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
James Cunningham v. the City of New Orleans & the New Orleans Police Department La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
1/19/05), (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct.
Durell Barnett and Eric Washington v. Patrick Woodburn and Louisiana Department of Transportation La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
Cedric Howard v. Frank D. Norton, Baton Rouge Police Department, City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
1/ 19/ 05), Lemings v. Sanasac, 16- 0052 ( La.
Douglas Robins v. Mohammad Zohair Pirzadah, M.D. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Landrieu 274 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
McCloskey v. Higman Barge Lines, Inc. 269 So. 3d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Etienne v. C. Thompson Auto., Inc. 269 So. 3d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Arthur Etienne, Jr. v. C. Thompson Automotive, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Cooper v. Chamberlain 266 So. 3d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1/19/05), , 47 (citation omitted).
Jenella E. Ben and Rickie Hairston v. Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
1/19/05), Wendel v. Travelers Ins.
Ben v. Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. 241 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1/19/05), ; Wendel v. Travelers Ins.
Chelsea Jackson v. Aramark Healthcare Services La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
1/19/05), (citations omitted), our supreme court noted: 4 An adverse presumption exists when a party having control of a favorable witness fails to call him or her to testify, even though the presumption is rebuttable and is tempered by the fact that a party
Jackson v. Aramark Healthcare Servs. 239 So. 3d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1/19/05), (citations omitted), our supreme court noted: An adverse presumption exists when a party having control of a favorable witness fails to call him or her to testify, even though the presumption is rebuttable and is tempered by the fact that a party need only put on enough evidence to prove the case.
Larry F. Mitchell v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development 219 So. 3d 1061 La. 2017
1/19/05), (finding no error in the trial court’s exclusion of hearsay testimony); see also La.
Lemings v. Sanasac 209 So. 3d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Blanton v. Napier 209 So. 3d 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Williams v. Parish of St. Bernard 206 So. 3d 259 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2016
Distinguished Bach v. Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners 193 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
1/19/05), , in support of his position on this issue.
Woods v. Hall 194 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), .
Burch v. SMG, Schindler Elevator Corp. 191 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Driscoll v. Stucker, 2004-0589, p. 29 (La.1/19/05), .
Dileo v. Horn 189 So. 3d 1189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), .
Tate v. Kenny 186 So. 3d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Driscoll v. Stucker, 2004-0589, p. 29 (La.1/19/05), .
Harvey v. State 183 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
A state official is individually liable for violating the constitutional rights of his victim.” Driscoll v. Stucker, 2004-0589, 27-28 (La.1/19/05), (citations omitted).
Glasscock v. Board of Supervisors 174 So. 3d 757 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.01/19/05), ; Ollis v. Miller, 39,087 (La.App.2d Cir.10/29/04), .
Young v. Marsh 153 So. 3d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Driscoll v. S tucker, 04-0589 (La.01/19/05), .
Lawrence v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 151 So. 3d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“This adverse presumption is referred to as the ‘uncalled witness’ rule and applies “when “a party has the power to produce witnesses whose testimony would elucidate the transaction or occurrence” and fails to call such witnesses.’ ” Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 19 (La.1/19/05), , quoting 19 Frank L. Maraist, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Evidence and Proof, § 4.3 (1999).
Livingston C. Guidry, Et Ux. v. Kysha Lashane Bernard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
1/19/05), the supreme court stated that “a witness is not unavailable for purposes of the exception to the confrontation requirement unless the authorities have made a diligent and good faith effort to obtain his presence at trial.” See also Finch
Guidry v. Bernard 142 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-589, p. 24 (La.1/19/05), , the supreme court stated that “a witness is not unavailable for purposes of the exception to the confrontation requirement unless the authorities have made a diligent and good faith effort to obtain his presence at trial.” See also Finch, .
Lemoine v. Mike Munna, L.L.C. 148 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), .
Paulin v. Department of Health 146 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated, “Although hearsay may be admissible in administrative hearings, the findings *270 of an administrative body must nonetheless be supported by competent evidence.” Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), .
Thompson v. Bank One of Louisiana, NA 134 So. 3d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The Louisiana Supreme Court reaffirmed the viability of the uncalled witness rule in Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-589, pp. 18-19 (La.1/19/05), , stating: An adverse presumption exists when a party having control of a favorable witness fails to call him or her to testify, even though the presumption is rebutta-ble and is tempered by the fact that a party need only put on enough evidence to prove the case.
Katie Tidwell v. Premier Staffing, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 3/7/12), -70, we stated: 3 With regard to the uncalled witness rule, the supreme court discussed its application in Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-589, pp. 18-19 (La.1/19/05), stating: “An adverse presumption exists when a party having control of a favorable witness fails to call him or her to testify, even though the presumption is rebuttable and is tempered by the fact that a party need only put on enough evidence to prove the case.
Tidwell v. Premier Staffing, Inc. 127 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 3/7/12), -70 , we stated: 14With regard to the uncalled witness rule, the supreme court discussed its application in Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-589, pp. 18-19 (La.1/19/05), , stating: “An adverse presumption exists when a party having control of a favorable witness fails to call him or her to testify, even though the presumption is rebuttable and is tempered by the fact that a party need only put on enough evidence to prove the case.” Safety Ass’n of Timbermen Self Insurers Fund v. M
Granger v. Christus Health Central Louisiana 144 So. 3d 736 La. 2013
Such action or recommendation should also be taken "within the scope of the functions of such committee.” See Driscoll v. Stucker, 2004-0589 (La.1/19/05), .
Jerrl L. Thompson v. Haralampos Rizos La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Walley v. Vargas 104 So. 3d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
1st Cir. 1/19/05), , plaintiffs demonstrated in the trial proceedings inconsistencies in Metrejean's written statement, indicating that her testimony may not have been favorable only to defendants herein.
Simon v. Hillensbeck 100 So. 3d 946 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 18 (La.1/19/05), (An adverse presumption exists when a party having control of a favorable witness fails to call him or her to testify, even though the presumption is rebuttable and is tempered by the fact that a party need only put on enough evidence to prove the case.
Buddy" Caldwell, Attorney General Ex Rel. State of Louisiana v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc. " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
1/19/05), -43 (citations omitted).
Caldwell ex rel. State v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc. 100 So. 3d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-589, pp. 9-13 (La.1/19/05), -43 (citations omitted).
Cason v. Chesapeake Operating, Inc. 92 So. 3d 436 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Driscoll v. Stucker, 2004-0589 (La.1/19/05), .
Succession of Barattini 91 So. 3d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), .