Cited by

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

341 citing documents.

Wyatt v. Hendrix 998 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Lofton 992 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
The defendant further argues that the testimony provided by Ms. Buquet should have been excluded because it did not meet the reliability standards for expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993) (La.
State v. Strother 990 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
2d Cir.5/09/07), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/11/08), : wherein the supreme court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
Wood v. State ex rel. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 989 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
s At the summary judgment stage, the DauberL-Foret standards should be considered by the trial judge in deciding whether to admit expert opinion evidence.
Snelling v. LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER-MONROE 986 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Philip Broussard v. Lafayette Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
11/30/93), (adopting Daubert ).
Broussard v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 984 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Foret, 93-0246 (La.11/30/93), (adopting Daubert).
Everhardt v. LOUISIANA DOTD 978 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
In Re Alford 977 So. 2d 811 La. 2008
LAFAYETTE CITY CONSOL. GVMT. v. Entergy 975 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Input/Output, Inc. v. WILSON GREATBATCH 977 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
State v. Williams 974 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), (La.
Succession of Werner v. Zarate 979 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Timothy A. Brannon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Brannon 971 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Devall v. Baton Rouge Fire Department 979 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), in that the testimony was without scientific basis.
State v. Taylor 968 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
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. Delaney 965 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Samuel Delaney La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Parfait v. Transocean Offshore, Inc. 992 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Franklin 956 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
wherein the supreme court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
Samaha v. Rau 961 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light 951 So. 2d 1058 La. 2007
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Grant v. American Sugar Refining, Inc. 952 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), standards should be considered by the trial court in deciding whether to admit expert opinion evidence at the summary judgment stage.
State v. Greene 951 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Bozeman 951 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test for reliability of expert scientific testimony set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert , as a guide to determining the admissibility of expert testimony under LSA-C.E.
Holzenthal v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 950 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Holzenthal v. SEWERAGE & WATER BD. OF NO 950 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); (La.
Parfait v. Transocean Offshore, Inc. 950 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Denton v. Vidrine 951 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Denton v. Vidrine 947 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Boudreaux 945 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
Lam Ex Rel Lam v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins 946 So. 2d 133 La. 2006
State v. Allen 942 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
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. Chandler 939 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity Nat. 948 So. 2d 84 La. 2006
[10] See Independent Fire Insurance Company v. Sunbeam Corporation, 99-2181, p. 14 (La.2/29/00), , (It is appropriate for Louisiana courts to utilize the federal authorities in interpreting the Louisiana Code of Evidence.).
Myers v. Myers 931 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and State v. Foret, 93-0246 (La.11/30/93), .
Corkern v. TK VALVE 934 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
-23 (La.1993); see Independent Fire, 755 So.2d at 234 .
Cook v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Office of State Police 928 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) as any use of the prior polygraph test for impeachment presupposes its scientific accuracy and the accuracy of its interpretation.
State v. Addison 920 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that courts may rely on the standard enunciated in Daubert when evaluating the admissibility of scientific expert testimony pursuant to Article 702.
MSOF CORP. v. Exxon Corp. 934 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), [7] and Independent Fire Ins.
Franklin v. Franklin 928 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
State v. Persley 918 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
for the proposition that, when an objection is made, and prior to a witness being qualified as an expert, the trial court must perform a "gatekeeping" function, which followed federal guidelines-i.e., it must make a determination that the testimony presented is reliable and not personal conjecture.
Adams v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. 914 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (La.
ST. MARTINVILLE v. Louisiana Tax Com'n 917 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) or its Louisiana counterpart
LeBlanc v. Baxter 905 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
This standard was subsequently adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Foret, 93-246 (La.11/30/93), , as a guide to determining the admissibility of expert testimony under La.C.E.
Heather Reider v. Louisiana Board of Trustees for State Colleges La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Reider v. State Ex Rel. La. Bd. of Trustees 897 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Smith v. Tierney 906 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
The Daubert standard, requires that expert scientific testimony rise to a threshold level of reliability in order to be admissible under LSA-C.E.