Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hodges v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 433 So. 2d 125.

82 citing documents.

Simmons v. Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc. 780 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Bally's Louisiana, Inc. v. GAMING CONTROL BD. 807 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the purposes of discovery: *264 The basic objectives of the Louisiana discovery process are (1) to afford all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts pertinent to the litigation, (2) to discover the true facts and compel disclosure of these facts wherever they may be
State v. McBride 773 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Hoerner v. ANCO Insulations, Inc. 729 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Davis v. American Home Products Corp. 727 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Connick v. Brechtel 713 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Co., (citations omitted).
Wolford v. JoEllen Smith Psych. Hosp. 693 So. 2d 1164 La. 1997
50 , 350 A.2d 473, 475 (1976)); (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct.
Adams v. Deaton, Inc. 694 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
1422-1425, permit discovery “regarding any matter not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter of the action.”
Rullan v. Adobbati 674 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Angelo & Son, Inc. v. RAPIDS BANK & TRUST CO. 671 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Co., Stevens v. *1290 Hartford Ins.
Stevens v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest 646 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Williams v. General Motors Corp. 639 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
stating as follows: This Court, has said that: [t]he basic objectives of the Louisiana discovery process are (1) to afford all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts pertinent to the litigation, (2) to discover the true facts and compel disclosure of these facts wherever they may be found, (3) to assist litigants in preparing the
Brown v. Car Insurance Co. in Receivership 634 So. 2d 1163 La. 1994
Co., Cousins v. State Farm Mut.
Trenticosta v. Mamoulides 633 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Moak v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 631 So. 2d 401 La. 1994
DISCOVERY This Court, has said that: [t]he basic objectives of the Louisiana discovery process are (1) to afford all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts pertinent to the litigation, (2) to discover the true facts and compel disclosure of these facts wherever they may be found, (3) to assist litigants in preparing the
Lehmann v. American Southern Home Ins. Co. 615 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the basic objectives of the Louisiana discovery process as follows: (1) to afford all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts pertinent to the litigation, (2) to discover the true facts and compel disclosure of these facts wherever they may be found, (3) to assis
Stelly v. Mouret 609 So. 2d 827 La. 1992
Smith v. Audubon Insurance Co. 595 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
1st Cir.1982), amended and remanded on other grounds
Smith v. Tillman 580 So. 2d 912 La. 1991
This matter is remanded to the district court which should make an in-camera inspection of the documents sought and order production of those documents, in addition to the statements of witnesses
Testa Distributing Co., Inc. v. Tarver 584 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Cantrelle Fence and Supply Co., (La.App.
Succession of Holliday 576 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Hicks v. Somers 567 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Cantrelle Fence & Supply Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
: *1309 The basic objectives of the Louisiana discovery process are (1) to afford all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts pertinent to the litigation, (2) to discover the true facts and compel disclosure of these facts wherever they may be found, (3) to assist litigants in preparing their cases fo
Morris v. Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park Camp Resort 539 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Martinolich v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. 532 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Martinolich v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 532 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Fisher-Rabin Medical Center v. Burdick Corp. 525 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Co., in which the Supreme Court discussed the purposes of discovery: The basic objectives of the Louisiana discovery process are (1) to afford all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts pertinent to the litigation, (2) to discover the true facts and compel disclosure of these facts wherever they may be found
Macheca v. Bohn 503 So. 2d 467 La. 1987
(where attorney had represented both insurer and insured, insured could discover attorney’s correspondence in subsequent *468 suit by insured against insurer).
McHugh v. Chastant 503 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Freeman v. Guaranty Broadcasting Corp. 498 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Butler 488 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Juneau v. Avoyelles Parish Police Jury 482 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Co., as follows: "This so-called `opinion work product' rule is derived from Federal Rule 26(b)(3).11 The rule is `distinct from and broader than the attorney-client privilege.'