Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Carter, 46 So. 2d 897.

16 citing documents.

Budget Rent-A-Car v. Gradnigo 611 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
to testify to any matter upon which the expert himself says he is qualified to give an expert opinion; the court must have some discretion to limit the witness's testimony as an expert to the actual field of his expertise and as applicable to the facts of the particular litigation, then before it (subject of course to a showing that the court abused its discretion in this regard, , .)
State v. Gremillion 529 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Carpenter v. Besco Corp. 521 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
o testify to any matter upon which the expert himself says he is qualified to given an expert opinion; the court must have some discretion to limit the witness’s testimony as an expert to the actual field of his expertise and as applicable to the facts of the particular litigation, then before it (subject of course to a showing that the court abused its discretion in this regard, , [ (La.1950) ].)
Roper ex rel. Roper v. Gelsomino 507 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
to testify to any matter upon which the expert himself says he is qualified to give an expert opinion; the court must have some discretion to limit the witness’s testimony as an expert to the actual field of his expertise and as applicable to the facts of the particular litigation, then before it (subject of course to a showing that the court abused its discretion in this regard, , .)
Neumeyer v. Terral 478 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
to testify to any matter upon which the expert himself says he is qualified to give an expert opinion; the court must have some discretion to limit the witness's testimony as an expert to the actual field of his expertise and as applicable to the facts of the particular litigation, then before it (subject of course to a showing that the court abused its discretion in this regard, , .)
State v. Mitchell 476 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Succession of Armshaw v. Succession of Marbury 428 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
to testify to any matter upon which the expert himself says he is qualified to give an expert opinion; the court must have some discretion to limit the witness's testimony as an expert to the actual field of his expertise and as applicable to the facts of the particular litigation, then before it (subject of course to a showing that the court abused its discretion in this regard, , .)
Jennings v. Allstate Insurance Company 273 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
to testify to any matter upon which the expert himself says he is qualified to give an expert opinion; the court must have some discretion to limit the witness's testimony as an expert to the actual field of his expertise and as applicable to the facts of the particular litigation, then before it (subject of course to a showing that the court abused its discretion in this regard, , .)
State v. Alexander 211 So. 2d 650 La. 1968
Carvell v. Winn 154 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
to testify to any matter upon which the expert himself says he is qualified to give an expert opinion; the court must have some discretion to limit the witness's testimony as an expert to the actual field of his expertise and as applicable to the facts of the particular litigation then before it (subject of course to a showing that the court abused its discretion in this regard, , ).
State v. Wilson 127 So. 2d 158 La. 1961
15:466; , ; State v. Nicolosi, 228 La.
State v. Di Vincenti 93 So. 2d 676 La. 1957
342 , ; , ; State v. Cage, 224 La.
State v. Compagno 89 So. 2d 158 La. 1956
15:466; , ; State v. Nicolosi, 228 La.
State v. Dartez 89 So. 2d 48 La. 1956
.” The witness Ray Herd is the same witness whose competency was attacked in the Nicolosi case and he was therein testifying as to the same drug, to-wit: marijuana.
State v. Mills 86 So. 2d 895 La. 1956
15:466; , ; State v. Nicolosi, 228 La.
State v. Nicolosi 81 So. 2d 771 La. 1955