Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Foret, 628 So. 2d 1116.

341 citing documents.

State v. Mullen 269 So. 3d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), (La.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Lee Belsha La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
which stated that a Jackson review encompasses all the evidence adduced at trial whether admissible or inadmissible; which set forth the mechanism for testing the admissibility of scientific and technical evidence in Louisiana.
Mariakis v. N. Oaks Health Sys. 258 So. 3d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and State v. Foret , (La.
State v. Critton 251 So. 3d 1281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
The standard for accepting expert testimony was set forth in State v. Foret , (La.
State v. Johnson 253 So. 3d 887 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
Hickman v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 255 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
12/3/03), , 541, and State v. Foret , , 1121 (La.
Starks v. Starks 250 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Danae Marie Guillot Starks v. Bradley Dyson Starks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Kyvonte Latrell Eaglin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Eaglin 239 So. 3d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999), as adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Foret
Thompson v. Ctr. for Pediatric & Adolescent Med., L.L.C. 244 So. 3d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Harvey v. Bd. of Comm'rs for the Orleans Levee Dist. 236 So. 3d 763 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2017
In State v. Foret , , 1123 (La.
Bristol ex rel. Child v. Gonzales Police Dep't ex rel. Child 240 So. 3d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
2786 , 2795-2799, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and State v. Foret , , 1121-1123 (La.
State v. Steines 245 So. 3d 224 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Lutz 235 So. 3d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Lucky v. Way 245 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
2d 469 (1993), and State v. Foret , , 1123 (La.
State v. Lee 217 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
The courts of Louisiana have applied the Daubert standard since the Louisiana Supreme Court rendered its 1993 (La.
Bryan Reed v. Cowboy's Western Store and Trailer Sales, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Reed v. Cowboy's Western Store & Trailer Sales, Inc. 214 So. 3d 987 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Jasmine Jones v. Progressive Security Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Jones v. Progressive Security Insurance Co. 209 So. 3d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Thomassie 206 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); (La.
State v. Achelles 208 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
8/30/13), , this Court discussed the standards for the admissibility of expert testimony as follows: (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), -22 (La.
Boudreaux v. Bollinger Shipyard 197 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
2786 , 125 L,Ed.2d 469 (1993)
State v. Otkins-Victor 193 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Victor 195 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana Versus Errol Victor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
State v. Conner 191 So. 3d 1072 La. 2016
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
State v. Hampton 183 So. 3d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the trial court is required to perform a “gatekeeping” function to “ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Lee 181 So. 3d 631 La. 2015
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), (La.C.E.
Oddo v. Asbestos Corp. 173 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Bernard 171 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
Pertuit v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2 170 So. 3d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The Daubert standard, requires that expert scientific testimony must rise to a threshold level of reliability in order to be admissible under La.-C.E.
State v. Farrier 162 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
When dealing with the proposed testimony of an expert, “the critical question [for the trial judge qua gatekeeper] is ‘On this subject, can a jury receive appreciable help from this person?’ ” (quoting Elizabeth Baker, Comment, Psychological Expert Testimony on a Child’s Veracity In Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions, 50 La.
Pratt v. Culpepper 162 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. 168 So. 3d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), (1993).
Explained Michael H. Taylor v. Louisiana State Racing Commission La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
5/9/08), we explained how to determine the admissibility of an expert’s testimony: the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.
Explained Soileau v. Louisiana State Racing Commission 156 So. 3d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 12/5/07), -18 , writ denied, 07-2465 (La.5/9/08), , we explained how to determine the admissibility of an expert’s testimony: the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
Roy Bufkin, Jr. v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC 171 So. 3d 851 La. 2014
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
State v. Porter 151 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) that requires trial courts to “ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct.
Succession of Jacob Bordelon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
5/9/08), this court explained the method of determining the admissibility of an expert’s testimony: the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.
Succession of Bordelon 149 So. 3d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 12/5/07), -18 , writ denied, 07-2465 (La.5/9/08), , this court explained the method of determining the admissibility of an expert’s testimony: the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
Ladart v. Harahan Living Center, Inc. 142 So. 3d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Hampton 136 So. 3d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Consequently, in reviewing this assignment of error as well as another in Part II, post
State v. Francois 134 So. 3d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
Hurst v. Hilton Hotels Corp. 131 So. 3d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
ngineering to assist the jury and that his opinions lack the reliability to be relevant or admissible.” *390 Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 702 requires that an expert be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” and possess “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” that can “assist the trier of fact.” State v. Foret, 93-0246 (La.11/30/93), .
State of Louisiana v. Wardell Christopher Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
12/7/07), the second circuit addressed the admissibility and review of expert testimony, stating: the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.
State v. Williams 124 So. 3d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2 Cir. 11/15/06) , -55 , writ denied, 07-530 (La.12/7/07), , the second circuit addressed the admissibility and review of expert testimony, stating: the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Robyn B. Little Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell 72 Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.