Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Moak v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 631 So. 2d 401.

81 citing documents.

Nicholas Rozas v. Keith Montero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Rozas v. Montero 916 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Co., 93-783 (La.1/14/94), ; (La.App.
Delacroix Corp. v. Dean 901 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/93), .
Smith v. 4938 Prytania, Inc. 895 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Standard of Review In Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that "[i]t is well established that trial courts in Louisiana have broad discretion when regulating pre-trial discovery, which discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse."
Clark v. Matthews 891 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Moak v. Illinois Cent R. Co., 93-0783, p. 6 (La.1/14/94), .
Kenneth Trahan and Lisa A. Trahan v. State of La., Department of Health & Hospitals La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Trahan v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Hospitals 886 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Co., 93-783 (La.1/14/94), ; (La.App.
Trahan v. STATE EX REL. DHH 886 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Co., 93-783 (La.1/14/94), ; (La.App.
Hazelwood Farm, Inc. v. Liberty Oil and Gas Corp. 844 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94); ; (La.App.
King v. Phelps Dunbar, LLP 844 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), .
Council of New Orleans v. All Taxpayers 841 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
West v. G & H SEED CO. 832 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
R. Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94); .
Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 798 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
See Moak v. Illinois Central R. Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), , modified on other grounds, Wolford v. JoEllen Smith Psychiatric Hosp., 96-2460, pp. 5-6 (La.5/20/97), -68 .
Whittenburg v. Zurich American Ins. Co. 786 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), .
Brimingham v. Horseshoe Entertainment Partnership 785 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
R. Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), .
Landis v. Moreau 779 So. 2d 691 La. 2001
R. Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), ; Wolford v. JoEllen Smith Psych.
McDuffie v. ACandS, Inc. 781 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
R. Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), (modified on other grounds, Wolford v. JoEllen Smith Psych.
Oliva v. WINN DIXIE LOUISIANA, INC. 756 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), .
Johnson v. Louisiana Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation 737 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), .
In Re Succession of Manheim 734 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), .
Hoerner v. ANCO Insulations, Inc. 729 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Id.; Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), .
Krepps v. Hindelang 713 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Frisard 96-368 (La.App.
Wolford v. JoEllen Smith Psych. Hosp. 693 So. 2d 1164 La. 1997
However, in Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), , this court noted that Article 1424 refers only to "writing" and concluded that the attorney work product exception does not apply to tangible things such as videotapes, films, or photographs.
State v. Frisard 694 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), .
Sass v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. 689 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
McNease v. MURPHY CONST. CO. 682 So. 2d 1250 La. 1996
Olivier v. LeJeune 668 So. 2d 347 La. 1996
1/14/94); , held, inter alia, that surveillance films are discoverable whether or not they will be used at trial.
Johnson v. Archdiocese of New Orleans 649 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
In the recent case, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that material such as surveillance films, videotapes and photographs are not "work products" excluded from discovery under La.C.C.P.
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 t
Detillier v. Smith 638 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Sanders v. Tidewater, Inc. 635 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994