DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Adams v. Chevron USA, Inc., 589 So. 2d 1219.

37 citing documents.

  • Laura Carter v. Iberia Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    The court adopted a four-part inquiry from Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Carter v. Iberia Parish Sch. Bd. 258 So. 3d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    The court adopted a four-part inquiry from Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. , , 1233 (La.App.
  • Buddy" Caldwell, Attorney General Ex Rel. State of Louisiana v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc. " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    3 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-2991 (La.2/4/94), this court approved of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal‟s approach to the evaluation of the admissibility of expert testimony, pronounced in Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Caldwell ex rel. State v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc. 100 So. 3d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    3 Cir. 1993), writ denied, 93-2991 (La.2/4/94), , this court approved of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s approach to the evaluation of the admissibility of expert testimony, pronounced in Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Janell Ernst v. Dr. Flynn A. Taylor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    (quoting Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Ernst v. Taylor 17 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    (quoting Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • James W. Townsend v. Trustees of Louisiana College La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    ng, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” “[Louisiana Code of Evidence Article] 702 states that experts may be qualified by reason of ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.’ Thus, formal education in the area of expertise is not required; ‘experience alone is enough to qualify a witness as an expert.’” Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Juan R. Vidaurri La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    art. 702 states that experts may be qualified by reason of ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.’ Thus, formal education in the area of expertise is not required; ‘experience alone is enough to qualify a witness as an expert.’” Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • State v. Vidaurri 919 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Thus, formal education in the area of expertise is not required; `experience alone is enough to qualify a witness as an expert.'" Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Giorgio v. Alliance Operating Corp. 886 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Shofstahl v. Board of Commissioners 841 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Shofstahl v. BD. OF COM'RS OF ORLEANS LEVEE 841 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • State v. Hurst 828 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Although such discretion is not absolute, Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Anderson v. Tenneco Oil Co. 826 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    We have reviewed this case, but do not find that it overrules Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Becnel v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 773 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    1 Cir.1985); Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Darbonne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 774 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    1 Cir.1985); *1028 Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • McPherson v. LAKE AREA MEDICAL CENTER 767 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 1993), writ denied, 93-2991 (La.2/4/94), , this court approved of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's approach to the evaluation of the admissibility of expert testimony, pronounced in Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Parker v. Southwestern Offshore Corp. 763 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    1107 , 113 L.Ed.2d 216 , (1991); Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Davis v. American Home Products Corp. 727 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • Gravolet v. BD. OF COM'RS. 676 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    In Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Clay v. International Harvester Co. 674 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    3 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-2991 (La.2/4/94), , this court approved of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's approach to the evaluation of the admissibility of expert testimony, pronounced in Adams v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Rowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 670 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    In determining the admissibility of expert testimony, we adopted the four step approach articulated in Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir.1991) and discussed in Adams v. Chevron U.S.A, Inc., (La.App.
  • Mistich v. Volkswagen of Germany, Inc. 666 So. 2d 1073 La. 1996
    1 Cir. 1985); Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • State v. Lewis 654 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • Southern Message Service, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    [2] Counsel for Southern Message urged that we consider a four-part test articulated in Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Strawder v. Zapata Haynie Corp. 649 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.
  • Bosse v. Westinghouse Elec., Inc. 637 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Clement v. Griffin 634 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    [2] The Louisiana Supreme Court's adoption of the Daubert standard overrules this court's previous decision in Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Frederick v. Woman's Hosp. of Acadiana 626 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    At the outset, except to give it more tone and broaden its fourth inquiry to take into account practical considerations of judicial administration, we generally adopt our brethren's pronouncement on the subject concerning the intrinsic value of expert testimony found in Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Manchack v. Willamette Industries, Inc. 621 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.
  • Pereira v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 620 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    This Court in Adams v. Chevron USA, Inc., (La.App.
  • State v. Quatrevingt 617 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Glankler v. Rapides Parish School Bd. 610 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Elaborating on the admissibility of expert testimony, the court in Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • State v. Hill 601 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    See, generally, Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir.1991); Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.App.
  • Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. 592 So. 2d 414 La. 1992
    Prior report: La.App., .
  • Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. 592 So. 2d 415 La. 1992
    Prior report: La.App., .
  • Davis v. Department of Police 590 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991