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.

  • Davis v. American Home Products Corp. 727 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted Daubert , mandating state courts to follow the same standards established by Daubert for federal courts.
  • State v. Langlois 729 So. 2d 591 La. 1998
    State v. Quatrevingt, 93-1644 (La.3/29/96), ; (per curiam); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • Perret v. Nelson 722 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    The plaintiffs opposed the testimony both in a motion in limine and at trial based on the restriction of expert testimony set out in Daubert, supra
  • Dufrene v. Willingham 721 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • Wehbe v. Waguespack 720 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • State v. Baker 720 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Brown 719 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Caubarreaux v. EI Dupont De Nemours 714 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Harris v. Landry 734 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Ballam v. Seibels Bruce Ins. Co. 712 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and applied by this court in Clement v. Griffin, 91-1664, 92-1001, 93-0591 to 93-0597, 93-0648 (La.App.
  • Vardaman v. Baker Center, Inc. 711 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    [6] the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the federal guidelines for admissibility of an expert's opinions, as explained by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct.
  • Miramon v. Bradley 701 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    2786, 2795-98 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); -23 (La.1993).
  • Maddox v. Omni Drilling Corp. 698 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • State v. Schmidt 699 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Jackson 692 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    set out the parameters for the admissibility of experts and scientific evidence and testimony.
  • Sandell v. Hooter 692 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • Williamson v. Haynes Best Western 688 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    -23 (La.1993), we note that in the latter opinion, 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.
  • State v. Rhodes 688 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    art. 719, an expert's report must be disclosed "`if related to the witness' testimony at trial.'"
  • Senn v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF LA. STATE UNIV. 679 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    Discussing the expert testimony of a psychotherapist and such expert's use of the CSAAS analysis in a child abuse case, observed: This type of testimony also suffers from a number of difficulties inherent with all types of psychodynamic psychology.
  • Hickman v. Exide, Inc. 679 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • White v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 680 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Bryant v. Tidy Building Services 678 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
  • Cross v. Cutter Biological, Div. of Miles Inc. 676 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    Daubert enumerated illustrative considerations to determine whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and can properly be applied to the facts at issue
  • State v. Wilson 677 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Rowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 670 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    11/30/93), (adopting Daubert ).
  • State v. Quatrevingt 670 So. 2d 197 La. 1996
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the procedure employed by Lifecodes to correct for band shifting is not a reliable methodology and should have been inadmissible.
  • Mitchell v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. 666 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    which considered the admissibility of a psychologist's expert testimony.
  • State v. Spencer 663 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, *275 113 S.Ct.
  • Boutte v. Nissan Motor Corp. 663 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted Daubert, supra, (La.
  • McGee v. Shell Oil Co. 659 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • Young v. Logue 660 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Lewis 654 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Johnson 652 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    as support for his position that the testimony of both Dr. Olinde and Dr. Coffman was improper.
  • Chustz v. JB Hunt Transport, Inc. 659 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct.
  • Southern Message Service, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    and, therefore, will be used by this court as well.
  • State v. Guidry 647 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Gaudet 638 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    (adopting the test for the admissibility of expert scientific testimony set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct.
  • Williams v. General Motors Corp. 639 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    adopted the standards for expert *287 witnesses established by the United States Supreme court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct.
  • State in Interest of AC 643 So. 2d 719 La. 1994
  • Wimberly v. Gatch 635 So. 2d 206 La. 1994
  • Clement v. Griffin 634 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)