DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

99 citing documents.

  • Melissa Horacek v. Davelyn Watson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    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.
  • Horacek v. Watson 86 So. 3d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    l5With 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: *770 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.
  • Cotton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 65 So. 3d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 29 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Cindy H. Sumners v. Brookshire Food Stores Louisiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Lange v. Orleans Levee District 56 So. 3d 925 La. 2010
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05); .
  • Brooks v. Reimonenq 44 So. 3d 824 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p.18 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Café LeBlanc, Inc. v. CGI Holdings, L.L.C. 34 So. 3d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 2004-0589, p. 17 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Strickland v. Gordon 33 So. 3d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 2004-0589, p. 17 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Thomas v. STATE BD. OF CERTIF. PUBLIC ACCS. 30 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
    In Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 24 (La.1/19/05), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the "[g]enuine unavailability of a witness is the jurisprudential requirement to obviate constitutional confrontation problems.
  • Thomas v. State Board of Certified Public Accountants of Louisiana 30 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 24 (La.1/19/05), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the “[gjenuine unavailability of a witness is the jurisprudential requirement to obviate constitutional confrontation problems.
  • Finch v. ATC/Vancom Management Services Ltd. Partnership 33 So. 3d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), (citing Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct.
  • Graham v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc. 37 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Smith v. LAFOURCHE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD 25 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1/19/05), , due process is an elusive concept, the boundaries of which are indefinable and varying.
  • Nunnery v. City of Kenner 17 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Bradley Chenvert v. Willis B. Ryland, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    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.
  • CHENVERT v. Ryland 7 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    1/19/05), , 47: 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.
  • Garnet Thibodeaux v. Elizabeth Williamson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Thibodeaux v. Williamson 9 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-589 (La.1/19/05), .
  • McBride v. McBride 5 So. 3d 1062 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Sheryl Gaspard McBride v. Steven Anthony McBride La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Johnson v. Department of Police 2 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 24 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Pugh v. City of Plaquemine 996 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Bartley v. Fondren 999 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Driscoll v. Stucker, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/19/05), ; Easter v. Direct Ins.
  • Brown v. City of Madisonville 5 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 29 (La.1/19/05), .
  • In Re Succession of Wagner 993 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, pp. 17-18 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Diana Istre Francis v. Michael G. Francis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    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.
  • Francis v. Francis 981 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    The supreme court recently discussed the adverse presumption rule in Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-589, pp. 18-19 (La.1/19/05), , 47: 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.
  • Estate of Derrick Francis v. City of Rayne La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    1/19/05), (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that: 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 o
  • Estate of Francis v. City of Rayne 966 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    In Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, pp. 18-19 (La.1/19/05), (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that: 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 cas
  • Easter v. Direct Ins. Co. 957 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Driscoll v. Stucker, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/19/05), ; Ollis v. Miller, 39,087 (La.App.2d Cir.10/29/04), ; Louisiana Safety Association of Timbermen Self Insurers Fund v. Malone Lumber, Inc., 34,646 (La.App.2d Cir.6/20/01), , writ denied, 2001-2557 (La.12/07/01), .
  • Morehouse v. SO. UNIV., BATON ROUGE CAMPUS 961 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Mr. Morehouse correctly asserts that our supreme court adopted this jurisprudence in Driscoll v. Stucker, XXXX-XXXX, p. 10 (La.1/19/05), -42 .
  • Lewis v. State Farm Ins. Co. 946 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Williams v. Enriquez, 41,200 (La.App.2d Cir.6/28/06), , citing Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), ; and Corder v. Lively, 39,780 (La.App.2d Cir.6/29/05), .
  • In Re Shiplov 945 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Driscoll v. Stucker, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/19/05), at 43 .
  • Marks v. New Orleans Police Dept. 943 So. 2d 1028 La. 2006
    As stated in Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 13 (La.1/19/05), , 43: Due process is an elusive concept.
  • Overton v. Shell Oil Co. 937 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 29 (La.2005), .
  • Williams v. Enriquez 935 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.01/19/05), ; Corder v. Lively, 39,780 (La.App.
  • Burrell v. Williams 938 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-589 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Laborde v. St. James Place Apartments 928 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, pp. 18-19 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Amanda Broussard v. Family Dollar Store La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Broussard v. Family Dollar Store 918 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-589 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Hamilton v. Wild 917 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    In Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), , the supreme court stated that "[t]he trial court is accorded broad discretion in assessing awards for lost earnings, but there must be a factual basis in the record for the *702 award."
  • Charrier v. Primm 909 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    1/19/05), ; Farrell v. Pierre, 02-1136 (La.App.
  • Stephen P. Basco, Et Ux. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Basco v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 909 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589 (La.1/19/05), .
  • Corder v. Lively 907 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Driscoll v. Stucker, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/19/05), .
  • John H. Pucheu v. Maxine Guidry Pucheu La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    1/19/05), which I believe governs this case: In civil cases, the appropriate standard for appellate review of factual determinations is the manifest error-clearly wrong standard, which precludes the setting aside of a district court’s finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in ligh
  • Jenny Slayton v. John N. Davis D/B/A Hub City Motors La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    1/19/05), (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
  • Slayton v. Davis 901 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 29 (La.1/19/05), (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
  • Rivette v. Rivette 899 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Driscoll v. Stucker, 04-0589, p. 11 (La.01/19/05), .