Cited by

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

341 citing documents.

Abraham v. RICHLAND PARISH HOSP. SERVICE 894 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Siverd v. Permanent General Insurance Co. 894 So. 2d 1204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) the trial court judge serves as “gate-keeper”, excluding expert testimony which is not both relevant and scientifically reliable.
Commonwealth Insurance Co. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. 899 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
5 A trial court is accorded broad discretion in determining whether expert testimony should be held admissible and who should or should not be permitted to testify as an expert.
Julie Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. 896 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Terrebonne v. B & J MARTIN, INC. 906 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
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. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
State v. Myles 887 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Taylor 880 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Basco v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 876 So. 2d 69 La. 2004
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the court was premature in reaching plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
Basco v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 876 So. 2d 69 La. 2004
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the court was premature in reaching plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 879 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
State v. Torregano 875 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
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.
State v. Franklin 872 So. 2d 1051 La. 2004
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
State v. Robinson 874 So. 2d 66 La. 2004
In State v. Foret , this Court held that where a trial court is considering the admissibility of proposed expert testimony, the trial court must first make "`a preliminary assessment' `of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts at issue.'" (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93 , 113 S.Ct.
Aaron v. City of Shreveport 867 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Cf., and its review of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
Allean Curtis v. Columbia Doctors' Hospital of Opelousas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Curtis v. COLUMBIA DOCTORS'HOSP. 862 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Cheairs v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 861 So. 2d 536 La. 2003
EXPERT WITNESS QUALIFICATIONS By its first two assignments of error, DOTD asserts that the district court erred as a and that the appellate court improperly failed to find that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed plaintiff's expert to testify.
State v. Matthews 859 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Avenal v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources 858 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
The Louisiana Supreme Court, adopted the United States Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
Tadlock v. Taylor 857 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Hays v. State 856 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Burnett v. Lewis 852 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999)
State v. White 850 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
State v. Chauvin 846 So. 2d 697 La. 2003
State v. Esteen 846 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
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.
Davis v. American Home Products Corp. 844 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), in conjunction with any scientific evidence used to establish their claims.
Cleland v. City of Lake Charles 840 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) gatekeeping function.
Amoco Production Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 838 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc. 837 So. 2d 1219 La. 2003
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Bethley v. Keller Const. 836 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Wingfield v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Smart v. Kansas City Southern RR 830 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Conner v. Stelly 830 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
The Daubert test, determines whether expert witness testimony will be admitted into evidence.
Richardson v. O'BYRNE 830 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Bergeron v. STATE BOXING 829 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), (1993).
State v. Washington 828 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
294 , 136 L.Ed.2d 213 (1993)
State v. Washington 828 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
294 , 136 L.Ed.2d 213 (1993)
Adeola v. Kemmerly 822 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
-23 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court accepted the test for reliability of expert scientific testimony set out by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
Benn v. Hilton Hotel, Inc. 815 So. 2d 830 La. 2002
See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., (1993)
Doe v. Archdiocese of New Orleans 823 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Keener v. Mid-Continent Cas. 817 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc. 817 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp. 811 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Dinett v. Lakeside Hosp. 811 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and further found that, absent the excluded testimony, the plaintiffs had no evidence of causation.
State v. Smith 809 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
2786, 2794 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); (La.
Rosen v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 809 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc. 801 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
White v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.