Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Spruell, 142 So. 2d 396.

21 citing documents.

Stephen Amedee & Tanya Amedee v. Aimbridge Hospitality Llc D/b/a Embassy Suites New Orleans & The City Of … La. 2022
3d 1106, 1112 (quoting State, (1962)), we observed that the purpose of the discovery process is: “to afford all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts pertinent to litigation, to discover the true facts and compel disclosure of these facts wherever they may be found.” We further noted that additional objectives include “assist[ing]
Ronald Hicks v. Usaa General Indemnity Company La. 2022
Acadiana Renal Physicians, a Medical Corporation v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regionalmedical Center, Inc.,lafayette General Medical Center, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
So.2d 396 (1962); (La.App.
Brady Gotte v. Barnes Personnel Management, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Gotte v. Barnes Personnel Management, Inc. 133 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
DOMINION EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION v. Waters 972 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Conques v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 779 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Hodges v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. 433 So. 2d 125 La. 1983
Bennett v. General Motors Corp. 420 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Weidenbacher v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 347 So. 2d 1160 La. 1977
Ranson, Swan and Burch, Ltd., we did incidentally refer, , , (1962), in distinguishing the latter decision and denying its claimed applicability to the issue then before the court.
Ogea v. Jacobs 344 So. 2d 953 La. 1977
Hanks v. Ranson, Swan & Burch, Ltd. 340 So. 2d 152 La. 1976
the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure which in general terms allows a party to “depose any person, including a party” and examine him “regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” 2 Defendants’ position on the other hand is that Article 1452 second paragraph, and certain cases interpreting that article, , (1962) and Nicholson v. Holloway Planting Company, Inc., preclude the court’s ordering the production or inspection of writings
State, Department of Highways v. Mims 311 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
State, , (1962); State, (La.App.
Cuccia v. Taylor 304 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Nicholson v. Holloway Planting Company, Inc. 284 So. 2d 898 La. 1973
(1962): "Its purpose is to afford all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts pertinent to litigation, to discover the true facts and compel disclosure of these facts wherever they may be found; to assist litigants in preparing their cases for trial; to narrow and clarify the basic issues between th
Cousins v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 258 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
We are mindful of State, , , wherein, under different factual circumstances, our Supreme Court held the prohibition in Article 1452, above, to be absolute.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Kronlage 195 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
The propriety of such a question was squarely held in State Through Dept. of Highways v. Riverside Realty Co., La.App., , .
Barnett v. Barnett Enterprises, Inc. 182 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
Mangrum v. Powell 181 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
State of Louisiana, through Department of Highways v. Riverside Realty Co., supra; , (1962).
Gaudet v. Lawes 166 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
The foregoing was so held, in substance, by the Supreme Court of this state in State through Dept. of Highways, v. Spruell, , .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Riverside Realty Co. 152 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
The court shall not order the production or inspection of any part of the writing Jhat reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or theories of an attorney or an expert.” This particular section of the Code of Civil Procedure was cited to the Court in State Through Dept. of Highways v. Spruell, et al., , , under an identical situation of facts which is presented to us now, and, in that case the Court held that the expert could use his notes or other memoranda for «the purposes of r