DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 694 So. 2d 193.

42 citing documents.

  • Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co. 152 So. 3d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    and Development, 96-1419, 96-1460 (La.5/20/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the court of appeal properly held that four particular exhibits were improperly admitted into evidence.
  • MJ Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 998 So. 2d 16 La. 2008
    & Dev., 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), (holding that "[i]nitially, a court must defer to legislative intent when determining whether a statute should be applied prospectively or retroactively."); Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), (holding that "[w]hen determining whether a statute should apply retrosp
  • Crisler v. Paige One, Inc. 974 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    and Dev., 26,800 (La.App.2d Cir.5/8/96), , affd, 96-1419, 96-1460 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Ernest R. Gremillion, Jr. v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    5/20/97), (quoting Perkins v. Ohio Dep’t of Transp., 65 Ohio App.3d 487, 584 N.E.2d 794 (1989)).
  • Gremillion v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 945 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    and Dev., 96-1419, p. 4 (La.5/20/97), (quoting Perkins v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 65 Ohio App.3d 487 , 584 N.E.2d 794 (1989)).
  • Long v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 916 So. 2d 87 La. 2005
    and Dev., 96-1419, p. 7 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Long v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 916 So. 2d 87 La. 2005
    and Dev., 96-1419, p. 7 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Craft v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 874 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419, 96-1460 (La.5/20/97)
  • Betty Jean Hargrove v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. Consolidated With Ricky Haley v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    5/20/97), ] 694 So.2d at 197, quoting Perkins v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 65 Ohio App.3d 487, 584 N.E.2d 794 (1989).
  • Long v. STATE, DOTD 862 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In Reichert v. State, DOTD, 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), , the court addressed the admissibility of four exhibits.
  • Ratliff v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 844 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    C. The district court erred in failing to follow the Supreme Court's analytical framework as espoused in [ Reichert v. State Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), ] and in particular the continued necessity to determine as a matter of fact/law whether a particular commission or omission is a cause in fact of the harm, which otherwise would fall within the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
  • State v. Taylor 838 So. 2d 729 La. 2003
    96-1419, pp. 6-8 (La.5/20/97), ("The amendment merely clarifies what the original statute purported to enact" and "seeks to rectify the misapplication of the statute by various" courts and so receives retroactive application); Peak v. Tuscaloosa Commerce Bank, 96-1258, pp. 6-7 (La.App.
  • Matos v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co. 808 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419, 96-1460, p. 10 (La.5/20/97), , (La.
  • Stepherson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 785 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, 96-1419 (La.05/20/97), ; cert.
  • Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp. 785 So. 2d 1 La. 2001
    & Dev., 96-1419, p. 6 (La.5/20/97), ; Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 7 (La.12/8/94), .
  • Bourgeois v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 783 So. 2d 1251 La. 2001
    & Dev., 96-1419, p. 6 (La.5/20/97), ("Initially, a court must defer to legislative intent when determining whether a statute should be applied prospectively or retroactively."); Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569, p. 7 (La.12/8/94), ("When determining whether a statute should apply retrospectively, courts are ini
  • Palacios v. LOUISIANA AND DELTA RAILROAD, INC. 775 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    and Dev., 96-1419 (La.5/20/97); , quoting Perkins v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 65 Ohio App.3d 487 , 584 N.E.2d 794 (1989).
  • Harris v. Carter 768 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation, 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Plank v. Town of Rayville 764 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    & Dev., 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), ; Fry, supra.
  • Dartlone v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 763 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Reichert v. State, Through the Department of Transportation, 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Irion v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 760 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In support of this argument, DOTD relies heavily on the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Allen v. Blanchard 763 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    See Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419 and 96-1460, p. 7 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Strouse v. M & M PROPERTIES 753 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, 96-1419 (La.05/20/97), ; Hae Woo Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 92-3017 (La.10/07/93), .
  • Dowell v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 750 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    As noted by the supreme court in Reichert v. State, Department of Transporation and Development, 96-1419 (La.05/20/97), , by enacting section 409, Congress intended to "[f]oster the free flow of safety-related information by precluding the possibility that such information later would be admissible in civil suits.
  • Dowell v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 750 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    As noted by the supreme court in Reichert v. State, Department of Transporation and Development, 96-1419 (La.05/20/97), , by enacting section 409, Congress intended to “[fjoster the free flow of safety-related information by precluding the possibility that such information later would be admissible in civil suits.
  • Poole v. Jefferson Parish Recreation Department 750 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    and Development, 96-1419, (La.5/20/97), .
  • Ditch v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 745 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    is particularly puz *1288 zled by the introduction of the reports in view of the State’s own Motion in Li-mine to exclude this type of evidence as impermissible under 23 USC 409, a Wiedeman v. Dixie Electric Membership Corporation, 93-CC1314, 93-CC1318, 93-CC1352 (La.11/29/93), ; and Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-C-1419, 96-C-1460, (La.5/20/97), .
  • Sevario v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. 752 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419, 96-1460, p. 4 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Brown v. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 746 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Brown argues that the trial court erred in excluding the testimonial evidence of witnesses to other accidents occurring in the vicinity of her accident based on Reichert v. State, Through DOTD, 96-1419, 96-1460 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Long v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 743 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    In Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, et al., 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), , the supreme court interpreted the change in § 409, stating: We hold section 409 bars discovery and introduction into evidence of all highway safety information collected or compiled by the State for the purpose of obtaining federal funds to enforce safety.
  • Palacios v. Louisiana and Delta RR Inc. 740 So. 2d 95 La. 1999
    & Dev., 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), , [4] ruling that the 1995 amendment adding data "collected" to the category of protected information was Congress' response to recent state court decisions like Wiedeman that had purportedly misinterpreted the statute.
  • Arbourgh v. Sweet Basil Bistro, Inc. 740 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Reichert v. State, DOTD, 96-1419, 96-1460 (La.5/20/97)
  • Rambo v. Walker 722 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Cf. Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation, 96-1419, 96-1460, p. 7 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Palacios v. Louisiana and Delta Railroad, Inc. 721 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    and Dev., 96-1419 (La.5/20/97); , the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted the 1995 amendment to 23 U.S.C.
  • Fry v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. 715 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    32:235(E); Reichert v. State, DOTD, 94-1419 (La.05/20/97), ; Donavan v. Jones, 26,883 (La.App.2d Cir. 06/21/95), , writs denied, 95-1786, 95-1891 (La.11/03/95), .
  • Harrington v. La. State Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ. 714 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419, 96-1460 (La.5/20/97)
  • Devers v. Southern University 712 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    See Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation, 96-1419 and 96-1460, p. 7 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Peak v. Tuscaloosa Commerce Bank 707 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Delome v. Tulane Educational Fund 703 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419, 96-1460 (La.5/20/97)
  • Morgan v. Earnest Corp. 704 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    See Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation, 96-1419, 96-1460, p. 7 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Ardoin v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 701 So. 2d 184 La. 1997
  • Eppinette v. City of Monroe 698 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    See Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419 (La.5/20/97), .