DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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 v. Goldston 804 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Dorsey 796 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    294 , 136 L.Ed.2d 213 (1996); (La.
  • State v. Johnson 796 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); State v. Koon, 31,177 (La.App.2d Cir.2/24/99), .
  • State v. Ledet 792 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    -1131 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court examined and adopted the United States Supreme Court's established standard for the admission of scientific evidence in Daubert, supra .
  • Davis v. Martel 790 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Louisiana adopted the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which mirrors Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 702 (La.
  • In Re New Orleans Train Car Leakage Fire Litigation 795 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the trial court, as the "gatekeeper" with respect to expert testimony, should have excluded the testimony of plaintiffs' experts Dr. Lawrence Miller and Dr. Drew Gouvier.
  • Lemaire v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. 793 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    The Louisiana Supreme *350 Court adopted Daubert , mandating state courts to follow the same standards established by Daubert for federal courts.
  • Sea Robin Pipeline Co. v. NEW MEDICO CLINIC 809 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    2786, 2797 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), , 1122: whether the technique has been subjected to peer review and/or publication, the "known or potential rate of error," the existence of standards controlling the technique's operation, the technique's refutability or testability, and the general acceptance in the scientific community.
  • Garcia v. LOUISIANA DOTD 787 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • State v. Ste. Marie 801 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Testimony Concerning CSAAS Defendant claims the trial court erred by allowing the testimony of Cindy Hayes
  • State v. Murphy 785 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    discussed in detail the application of La.
  • Hartley v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 785 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Ardoin v. Mills 780 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    the Louisiana Supreme Court observed the similarity between the federal and Louisiana rules regarding the admissibility of expert testimony and went on to "adopt Daubert's requirement that expert scientific testimony must rise to a threshold level of reliability in order to be admissible under La.C.E.
  • Balthazar v. Guillory Racing Farms 802 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Brauner 782 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    as support for his argument.
  • Greer v. Lammico 779 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), in laying a foundation for the introduction of testimony regarding when the cancer became incurable.
  • Simmons v. Berry 779 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Fromenthal v. Delta Wells Surveyors, Inc. 776 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Darbonne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 774 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    White v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
  • State v. Interest of WTB 771 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • State v. George 768 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Daubert/Foret claim By this assignment of error, to utilize the reasoning of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • Smith v. Cutter Biological 770 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Rogers v. Horseshoe Entertainment 766 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    In Daubert , the United States Supreme Court instructed trial courts to function as gatekeepers, to ensure that only reliable and relevant expert testimony is presented to the jury.
  • State v. Schmidt 771 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); (La.
  • Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Hill 763 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Wommack 770 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Blank v. Sid Richardson Carbon & Gasoline Co. 762 So. 2d 1115 La. 2000
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), prior to ruling on the motion for summary *1116 judgment.
  • Terrebonne v. Floyd 767 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    This 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. Carter 762 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • LaBove v. Raftery 759 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    2786, 2795-98 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); -23 (La.1993).
  • State v. Stokes 759 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, recognized that courts can rely on the standards enunciated in Daubert when evaluating the admissibility of scientific expert testimony pursuant to Article 702.
  • State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
  • Saden v. Kirby 759 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Calhoun v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 768 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    [2] (wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the Daubert standards as those to be utilized by Louisiana courts in considering whether expert opinion testimony will be admissible at trial).
  • Fussell v. Roadrunner Towing and Recovery 765 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp. 755 So. 2d 226 La. 2000
  • State v. Duvall 747 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • State v. Marcantel 756 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Wells 755 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    The standard, requires that "expert scientific testimony must rise to a threshold level of reliability in order to be admissible under La.C.E.
  • Mayho v. Amoco Pipeline Co. 750 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    [6] and applied to LSA-C.E.
  • State v. Collins 763 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • State v. Lawrence 752 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    He argues that the admission of this testimony, over defense counsel's repeated objections, that even an expert may not testify as to his assessment of a sexual abuse victim's credibility.
  • Simmons v. Berry 748 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Edwards 750 So. 2d 893 La. 1999
    2786 ; State v. Foret, 93-0246 (La.11/30/93), .
  • Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 731 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • James v. Beauregard Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 736 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    recognized that in evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony pursuant to Article 702, courts can rely on the standards enunciated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • Genovese v. Ferrygood 734 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    and have been summarized as follows: To qualify as scientific evidence, an inference, assertion, or opinion must be derived by scientific method....
  • State v. Roberts 739 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Brooks 734 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    -1123 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court clarified the trial judge's role under La.Code Evid.
  • State v. Koon 730 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)