DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

341 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Carol Noland Saltzman 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 Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.
  • State v. Davis 129 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • State v. Saltzman 128 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Mer-rell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • Murphy Cormier Contractor, Inc. v. State of La., Dept. of Health & Hospitals La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    An expert‘s qualifications are subject to the familiar Daubert review: the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in 9 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.
  • Murphy Cormier General Contractor, Inc. v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals 114 So. 3d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    An expert’s qualifications are subject to the familiar Daubert review: *577 the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • Jackson v. Suazo-Vasquez 116 So. 3d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    es that, “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” The Daubert standard, requires that expert testimony must rise to a threshold level of reliability in order to be admissible under La.
  • State v. Boudoin 106 So. 3d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • Fanguy v. Lexington Insurance Co. 105 So. 3d 848 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Arceneaux v. Shaw Group, Inc. 103 So. 3d 1086 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • State v. Waldrop 93 So. 3d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 *783 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • State v. Golden 95 So. 3d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Jennifer Stewart v. Harold G. Stewart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    This court in State v. Brannon explains how experts‟ qualifications are tested in Louisiana: the Louisiana [s]upreme [c]ourt adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), regarding proper standards for the admissibility of expert testimony which requires the trial court to act in a gatekeeping function to ensure that any and
  • Stewart v. Stewart 86 So. 3d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    This court in State v. Brannon explains how experts’ qualifications are tested in Louisiana: the Louisiana [s]upreme [c]ourt adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • State v. Carter 84 So. 3d 499 La. 2012
    Under the standards set out in Daubert , (Louisiana’s La.C.E.
  • State v. Marlowe 81 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    A trial court acts as a gatekeeper to the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert
  • State of Louisiana v. v. L. G. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER FOUR In his fourth assignment of error
  • Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. 77 So. 3d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • McFall v. Armstrong 75 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
    characterized the Daubert factors as “observations,” which provide a “helpful guide for our lower courts in considering this difficult issue.” The Daubert factors are designed to “assist the trial courts in their preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is
  • Wells v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections 72 So. 3d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • Jouve v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 74 So. 3d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, (La.
  • State v. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test for reliability of expert 17fiscientific testimony set forth in Daubert as a guide to determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Article 702.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Ferguson 54 So. 3d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • Carrier v. City of Amite 50 So. 3d 1247 La. 2010
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • State v. Johnson 52 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that courts may rely on the standard enunciated in Daubert when evaluating the admissibility of scientific expert testimony in accordance with La.
  • State v. Lamonica 44 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    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. Knight 36 So. 3d 1163 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    wherein the supreme court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • Nancy Taylor v. Progressive Security Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    2786 (1983) gate-keeping function.
  • Taylor v. Progressive SEC. Ins. Co. 33 So. 3d 1081 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) gate-keeping function.
  • Iles v. Ogden 37 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • State v. Lawrence 32 So. 3d 329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Prejean 24 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Becnel v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. 18 So. 3d 1269 La. 2009
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Granger v. Ridenour 15 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (La.
  • Robertson v. Hessler 13 So. 3d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the trial court is required to perform a “gatekeep-ing” function to “ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.
  • Lewis v. ODECO, INC. 12 So. 3d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (La.
  • Marie Benniefiel v. Zurich American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    2786, 2795, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); State v. Foret, 93-0246 (La.11/30/93); Rowe v. State Farm Mut.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jermaine Perry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.
  • Benniefiel v. Zurich American Insurance 10 So. 3d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2786, 2795 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); State v. Foret, 93-0246 (La.11/30/93); ; Rowe v. State Farm Mut.
  • State v. Perry 9 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Meirell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • State of Louisiana v. Lee Vidrine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    se’s right to test the scientific and/or factual basis and reliability of the expert’s opinion(s).” He further contends that the pre-trial hearing did not fall within the standards of a Daubert inquiry because the trial court “refused to allow defense counsel to ask questions about Ms. Benitez’s opinion.” 18 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. Vidrine 9 So. 3d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    ant asserts that the pre-trial hearing had “nothing to do with the defense’s right to test the scientific and/or factual basis and reliability of the expert’s opinion(s).” He further contends that the pre-trial hearing did not fall within the standards of a Dau-bert inquiry because the trial court “refused to allow defense counsel to ask questions about Ms. Benitez’s opinion.” the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 1
  • State v. Langston 3 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • Carrier v. City of Amite 6 So. 3d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Kramer v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. 999 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 592 , 113 S.Ct.
  • Kent Louis Kramer, Jr. v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    9 gatekeeper, which requires it to ensure that an expert has “a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility.” quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 592, 113 S.Ct.
  • Brown v. City of Madisonville 5 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State Ex Rel. Am 994 So. 2d 1277 La. 2008
  • State v. In the Interest of A.M. 994 So. 2d 1277 La. 2008