Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McLean v. Hunter, 495 So. 2d 1298.

212 citing documents.

Quinn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 774 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Alternatively, Wal-Mart argues that the jury verdict should be reviewed de novo because these tapes were erroneously excluded by the trial court.
LeBlanc v. Allstate Ins. Co. 772 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Rosell v. ESCO, supra; (La.
Lewis v. Lewis 771 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
See Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.02/06/98), ; Masters v. Masters, 33,438 (La.App.2d Cir.04/05/00), .
Patton v. Lemoine 776 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Wiggins v. City of Shreveport 768 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Magee v. Pittman 761 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Burns 750 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Slavich v. Knox 750 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Bullard v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development 744 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Bridgers v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Ass'n 746 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
James v. Beauregard Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 736 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Baxter v. Sonat Offshore Drilling, Inc. 734 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Butcher v. City of Monroe 737 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Cash v. McGregor 730 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Turner v. Parish of Jefferson Through Dept. of Recreation 721 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
and cases cited therein.
Hunter v. Bossier Medical Center 718 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Mitchell v. Kedia, 94-89 (La.
Brodtmann v. Duke 708 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Onan contends that on the basis of this evidentiary error, this Court must conduct an independent review of the record without deference to the trial court's findings and without reliance on the manifest error standard
Arco Oil & Gas Co. v. Deshazer 698 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development 694 So. 2d 193 La. 1997
Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc. 690 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Co., 94-1252 (La.2/20/95); ; Otto v. State Farm Mut.
Smith v. Juneau 692 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Gordon v. Levet 688 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
The purpose of a : The very purpose of requiring a proffer is to preserve excluded testimony so that the testimony (whatever its nature) is available for appellate review.
Magos v. Feerick 690 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Jordan v. Ryan 684 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Hebert v. Podiatry Ins. Co. of America 688 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Jones v. Hyatt Corp. of Delaware 681 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Rivet v. State, Dept. of Trans. and Dev. 680 So. 2d 1154 La. 1996
See, , 844 n. 2 (La.1989); Ragas v. Argonaut Southwest Ins.
Boutte v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 674 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
citing Ragas v. Argonaut Southwest Ins.
Olivier v. LeJeune 668 So. 2d 347 La. 1996
Clement v. Frey 666 So. 2d 607 La. 1996
Tamporello v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 665 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Ragas v. Dewey 663 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
With reference to defendant’s complaint that Dr. Indovina, an oral surgeon, should not have been permitted to testify as to community | nstandards of a general dentist, that a periodontist was qualified to testify relative to the standards of a general dentist.
Verret v. Tonti Management Corp. 662 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
rehearing denied, on remand, , writ.
Rhodes v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 656 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
844 n. 2 (La.1989); -78 (La.1984).
Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 656 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Rowsey v. Jones 655 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Michelli v. Michelli 655 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
: The very purpose of requiring a proffer is to preserve excluded testimony so that the testimony (whatever its nature) is available for appellate review.
Jones v. St. Francis Cabrini Hosp. 652 So. 2d 1331 La. 1995
Olivier v. LeJeune 649 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Gage v. Potts 653 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 650 So. 2d 742 La. 1995
Fraser v. Ochsner Foundation Hosp. 648 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 648 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
Leyva v. Iberia General Hosp. 643 So. 2d 1236 La. 1994
In one such case, we held that the testimony of a specialist with knowledge of the requisite subject matter was qualified to testify regarding the standard of care in a general practitioner's locale.
Chatelain v. Circle K Corp. 644 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Rosell v. ESCO, supra ; Collier v. Southern Builders, Inc., (La.App.
Mitchell v. Kedia 645 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Rivere v. Union Pacific R. Co. 647 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
West Jefferson Levee D. v. Coast Quality 640 So. 2d 1258 La. 1994
[34] (applying the foregoing principle to a jury's findings) ("When a jury is given incorrect instructions in the law ...
Turner v. Massiah 641 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Jones v. St. Francis Cabrini Hospital 638 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994