Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Suthon v. Laws, 61 So. 204.

14 citing documents.

State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Salemi 185 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
In interpreting the statute and its predecessor, Act 19 of 1884, the Supreme Court of our State has held that, to be entitled to the additional compensation allowed an expert witness, the witness must appear and testify considering the statute itself provides the additional fee is payable to “witnesses called to testify.” , 61 So.
Cox v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board 165 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
See Berry v. Higgins, Inc., La.App., ; Penouilh v. Toye Bros., La.App., ; , 61 So.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Jones 146 So. 2d 414 La. 1962
Prampin v. Southern Chemical Works, Inc. 65 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Womack v. Burka 19 So. 2d 127 La. 1944
The following decisions support the proposition that additional compensation is not allowed by Act 19 of 1884 for expert testimony, to be taxed as costs, unless the case is one in which expert testimony is essential: , 61 So.
Westwego Canal & Terminal Co. v. Louisiana Highway Commission 9 So. 2d 389 La. 1942
Penouilh v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 1 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
McCoy v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corporation 190 So. 391 La. 1939
tify in court only to an opinion founded on a special study or experience in any branch of science, or to make scientific or professional examinations, and to state the results thereof, shall receive additional compensation, to be fixed by the court, with reference to the value of the time employed and the degree of learning or skill required.” It was held by the court, , 61 So.
Duvernay v. Airey 172 So. 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Cutitto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 172 So. 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
170 , 171, we said: “We find, * * * that under Act No. 19 of 1884, , 61 So.
Bell v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation 152 So. 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Crichton v. Krouse 150 So. 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Wright v. Fuller Const. Co. 145 So. 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
McQueen v. Union Indemnity Co. 136 So. 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
to state the' results thereof, shall receive "additional "compensation to be fixed by the court, with reference to the value of the time employed and the degree of learning or skill required.” , 61 So.