145 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 18 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Foretgreen2 sentences2026“A Daubert motion uses ‘the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and adopted by our Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116, 1122 (La. 1993),’ and enlists the district court to ‘perform a ‘gatekeeping’ function to ‘ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.’” Nolaluna, 9 affidavit and accompanying report were irrelevant and unnecessary for the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment, but did not object to its incl 2026The syndrome-related evidence was “of highly questionable scientific validity, and fails to unequivocally pass the Daubert threshold test of scientific reliability.” Foret, 628 So. 2d at 1127 . 2 Even assuming the evidence met the Daubert standard, the Foret court alternatively found the expert could not rely on the syndrome findings to opine the victim was telling the truth. | 20 | 47 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2026“A Daubert motion uses ‘the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and adopted by our Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116, 1122 (La. 1993),’ and enlists the district court to ‘perform a ‘gatekeeping’ function to ‘ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.’” Nolaluna, 9 affidavit and accompanying report were irrelevant and unnecessary for the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment, but did not object to its incl 2026“A Daubert motion uses ‘the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and adopted by our Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116, 1122 (La. 1993),’ and enlists the district court to ‘perform a ‘gatekeeping’ function to ‘ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.’” Nolaluna, 9 affidavit and accompanying report were irrelevant and unnecessary for the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment, but did not object to its incl | 8 | 33 |
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichaelgreen2 sentences2011Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151 , 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1175 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). 18 The Loui siana Supreme Court adopted the Daubert analysis in State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993). 2011Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151 , 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1175 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). 18 The Loui siana Supreme Court adopted the Daubert analysis in State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993). | 2 | 32 |
State v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893, 909 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999). 24-KA-26 15 analysis [and on] some inconsistent statements regarding where she had been at particular times during the day preceding the disappearance of Mr. Davis and on the afternoon he went missing.”23 She contended that the trial court should not have accepted Agent Shute as an expert in cell site analysis and should not have admitted his testimony regarding his analysis of the defendants’ cell phone records, arguing that “Agent Shute’s methodologies are inve 2024See State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893, 909 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999). 24-KA-26 15 analysis [and on] some inconsistent statements regarding where she had been at particular times during the day preceding the disappearance of Mr. Davis and on the afternoon he went missing.”23 She contended that the trial court should not have accepted Agent Shute as an expert in cell site analysis and should not have admitted his testimony regarding his analysis of the defendants’ cell phone records, arguing that “Agent Shute’s methodologies are inve | 2 | 2 |
Coulibaly v. Immigration & Naturalization Servicegreen2 sentences2024See State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893, 909 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999). 24-KA-26 15 analysis [and on] some inconsistent statements regarding where she had been at particular times during the day preceding the disappearance of Mr. Davis and on the afternoon he went missing.”23 She contended that the trial court should not have accepted Agent Shute as an expert in cell site analysis and should not have admitted his testimony regarding his analysis of the defendants’ cell phone records, arguing that “Agent Shute’s methodologies are inve 2024See State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893, 909 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999). 24-KA-26 15 analysis [and on] some inconsistent statements regarding where she had been at particular times during the day preceding the disappearance of Mr. Davis and on the afternoon he went missing.”23 She contended that the trial court should not have accepted Agent Shute as an expert in cell site analysis and should not have admitted his testimony regarding his analysis of the defendants’ cell phone records, arguing that “Agent Shute’s methodologies are inve | 2 | 2 |
Lenoir v. Kerleygreen2 sentences2024See State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893, 909 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999). 24-KA-26 15 analysis [and on] some inconsistent statements regarding where she had been at particular times during the day preceding the disappearance of Mr. Davis and on the afternoon he went missing.”23 She contended that the trial court should not have accepted Agent Shute as an expert in cell site analysis and should not have admitted his testimony regarding his analysis of the defendants’ cell phone records, arguing that “Agent Shute’s methodologies are inve 2024See State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893, 909 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999). 24-KA-26 15 analysis [and on] some inconsistent statements regarding where she had been at particular times during the day preceding the disappearance of Mr. Davis and on the afternoon he went missing.”23 She contended that the trial court should not have accepted Agent Shute as an expert in cell site analysis and should not have admitted his testimony regarding his analysis of the defendants’ cell phone records, arguing that “Agent Shute’s methodologies are inve | 2 | 2 |
Scarbrough v. G A B Robinsgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893, 909 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999). 24-KA-26 15 analysis [and on] some inconsistent statements regarding where she had been at particular times during the day preceding the disappearance of Mr. Davis and on the afternoon he went missing.”23 She contended that the trial court should not have accepted Agent Shute as an expert in cell site analysis and should not have admitted his testimony regarding his analysis of the defendants’ cell phone records, arguing that “Agent Shute’s methodologies are inve 2024See State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893, 909 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999). 24-KA-26 15 analysis [and on] some inconsistent statements regarding where she had been at particular times during the day preceding the disappearance of Mr. Davis and on the afternoon he went missing.”23 She contended that the trial court should not have accepted Agent Shute as an expert in cell site analysis and should not have admitted his testimony regarding his analysis of the defendants’ cell phone records, arguing that “Agent Shute’s methodologies are inve | 2 | 2 |
Cheairs v. State Ex Rel. DOTDgreen2 sentences2023Department of Transp. and Development, 03-680 (La. 12/3/03), 861 So.2d 536 , the supreme court recognized a distinction between challenging the reliability of the methodology used by the expert, which is addressed by a Daubert inquiry, and the expert’s qualifications to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address. 2023Department of Transp. and Development, 03-680 (La. 12/3/03), 861 So.2d 536 , the supreme court recognized a distinction between challenging the reliability of the methodology used by the expert, which is addressed by a Daubert inquiry, and the expert’s qualifications to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address. | 1 | 13 |
Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp.green2 sentences2017In the Louisiana Supreme Court case Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181 (La. 2/29/00), 755 So.2d 226, 235 , the court held that expert opinion testimony can be considered on a motion for summary judgment, stating, “[a]l-though it is true that an expert is subject to cross examination at a deposition, affidavits are subject to challenge as well, by way of a Daubert hearing, a motion to strike, or counter affidavits,” However, the revision to Article 966 eliminated the motion to strike in summary judgment proceedings and further provided that no counter affidavits may be fil 2017In the Louisiana Supreme Court case Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181 (La. 2/29/00), 755 So.2d 226, 235 , the court held that expert opinion testimony can be considered on a motion for summary judgment, stating, “[a]l-though it is true that an expert is subject to cross examination at a deposition, affidavits are subject to challenge as well, by way of a Daubert hearing, a motion to strike, or counter affidavits,” However, the revision to Article 966 eliminated the motion to strike in summary judgment proceedings and further provided that no counter affidavits may be fil | 1 | 13 |
State v. Chauvingreen2 sentences2020State v. Chauvin, 02-1188 (La. 5/20/03), 846 So.2d 697, 709 ; State v. Johnson, supra. In the present case, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of Mr. Lane’s testimony without first conducting a Daubert hearing. 2020State v. Chauvin, 02-1188 (La. 5/20/03), 846 So.2d 697, 709 ; State v. Johnson, supra. In the present case, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of Mr. Lane’s testimony without first conducting a Daubert hearing. | 1 | 12 |
Guardia v. Lake View Regional Medical Centergreen2 sentences2023App. 1 Cir. 5/8/09), 13 So.3d 625, 631 . 7 issue beyond an opponent’s control, summary judgment is premature.6 Here, there was an unresolved Daubert issue, which presented a hindering circumstance beyond Mrs. Patrick’s control. 2015See Guardia v. Lakeview, 08-1369 (La.App. 1 Cir. 05/08/09) , 13 So.3d 625 (appellate court found summary judgment premature where trial court disqualified plaintiffs expert without first conducting a hearing on defendant’s motion in limine to strike plaintiffs expert to determine if expert’s testimony constituted reliable expert testimony as contemplated in Cheairs). | 1 | 2 |
Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc.green2 sentences2023App. 1st Cir. 1014111), 77 So. 3d 339, 355 , writ denied, 2011- 2468 ( La. 1/ 13/ 12), 77 So. 3d 972 ( finding a legal error when the trial court failed to conduct a Daubert analysis and evaluate the relevant reliability factors prior to excluding an expert' s evidence). 2023App. 1st Cir. 1014111), 77 So. 3d 339, 355 , writ denied, 2011- 2468 ( La. 1/ 13/ 12), 77 So. 3d 972 ( finding a legal error when the trial court failed to conduct a Daubert analysis and evaluate the relevant reliability factors prior to excluding an expert' s evidence). | 1 | 2 |
JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD EX REL. SALES/USE TAX DEPT. v. Louisiana MacHinery Rentals, LLCgreen2 sentences2023App. 1st Cir. 1014111), 77 So. 3d 339, 355 , writ denied, 2011- 2468 ( La. 1/ 13/ 12), 77 So. 3d 972 ( finding a legal error when the trial court failed to conduct a Daubert analysis and evaluate the relevant reliability factors prior to excluding an expert' s evidence). 2023App. 1st Cir. 1014111), 77 So. 3d 339, 355 , writ denied, 2011- 2468 ( La. 1/ 13/ 12), 77 So. 3d 972 ( finding a legal error when the trial court failed to conduct a Daubert analysis and evaluate the relevant reliability factors prior to excluding an expert' s evidence). | 1 | 2 |
Devall v. Baton Rouge Fire Departmentgreen2 sentences2012See Devall v. Baton Rouge Fire Department, 2007-0156, p. 8, 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/2/07), 979 So.2d 500, 502 . 2012See Devall v. Baton Rouge Fire Department, 2007-0156, p. 8, 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/2/07), 979 So.2d 500, 502 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Boudoingreen2 sentences2024App. 5 Cir. 12/27/12), 106 So.3d 1213, 1225-26 (holding the appellant preserved the issue for appeal because the appellant stipulated to the witness’ expertise at the Daubert hearing but then objected to her testimony at trial); cf. Everhardt v. La. 2024App. 5 Cir. 12/27/12), 106 So.3d 1213, 1225-26 (holding the appellant preserved the issue for appeal because the appellant stipulated to the witness’ expertise at the Daubert hearing but then objected to her testimony at trial); cf. Everhardt v. La. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bernardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp. v. Freygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. City of Madisonvillegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Laura's Products, Inc. v. 600 Conti Streetgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lam Ex Rel. Lam v. State Farm Auto. Ins.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robichauxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 758578
green
2 sentences2014Noting that the Daubert analysis did not directly consider an expert’s qualifications, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s three-part inquiry from City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chem., Inc., 158 F.3d 548 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 812 , 120 S.Ct. 309 , 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) “to [provide] more comprehensive guidance to district courts determining admissibility of expert testimony[.]” Cheairs, 861 So.2d at 542. 2014Noting that the Daubert analysis did not directly consider an expert’s qualifications, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s three-part inquiry from City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chem., Inc., 158 F.3d 548 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 812 , 120 S.Ct. 309 , 145 L.Ed.2d 42 (1999) “to [provide] more comprehensive guidance to district courts determining admissibility of expert testimony[.]” Cheairs, 861 So.2d at 542. | 3 | 2003–2014 |
United States v. Otero
green
2 sentences2018In providing the obligatory review of the Daubert standard, the Otero decision noted that "the reliability of expert testimony does not turn on the grounding of the expert's opinion in scientific principles." Otero, 849 F.Supp.2d at 431 . 2018In providing the obligatory review of the Daubert standard, the Otero decision noted that "the reliability of expert testimony does not turn on the grounding of the expert's opinion in scientific principles." Otero, 849 F.Supp.2d at 431 . | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Torregano
green
2 sentences2016Torregano, 875 So.2d 842 . 2016Torregano, 875 So.2d 842 . | 2 | 2005–2016 |
State v. Quatrevingt
green
2 sentences2004In State v. Quatrevingt, 93-1644 (La.2/28/96), 670 So.2d 197 , this Court applied the Daubert factors to hold that DNA profiling is sufficiently reliable to cross the admissibility threshold as long as the trial court performs its gate-keeping functions. 2004In State v. Quatrevingt, 93-1644 (La.2/28/96), 670 So.2d 197 , this Court applied the Daubert factors to hold that DNA profiling is sufficiently reliable to cross the admissibility threshold as long as the trial court performs its gate-keeping functions. | 2 | 2004–2012 |
State v. Pickett
neutral
2 sentences2009Further, “when the objecting party fails to request a Daubert hearing, objections to the admissibility of an expert witness’s testimony under Daubert are not preserved for appeal.” Brown v. Schwegmann, 05-830, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/25/07), 958 So.2d 721, 724 , writ denied, 07-1094 (La.9/21/07), 964 So.2d 333 (citing State v. Pickett, 03-1492 (La.App 3 Cir. 5/26/04), 878 So.2d 722 ). 2009Further, “when the objecting party fails to request a Daubert hearing, objections to the admissibility of an expert witness’s testimony under Daubert are not preserved for appeal.” Brown v. Schwegmann, 05-830, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/25/07), 958 So.2d 721, 724 , writ denied, 07-1094 (La.9/21/07), 964 So.2d 333 (citing State v. Pickett, 03-1492 (La.App 3 Cir. 5/26/04), 878 So.2d 722 ). | 2 | 2007–2009 |
Terrebonne v. B & J MARTIN, INC.
neutral
2 sentences2009Terrebonne v. B & J Martin, Inc., 03-2658, p. 10 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/29/04), 906 So.2d 431, 440 . 2009Terrebonne v. B & J Martin, Inc., 03-2658, p. 10 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/29/04), 906 So.2d 431, 440 . | 2 | 2005–2009 |
Millican v. River Road Const., Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2007In support of its position, SWB cites Millican v. River Road Const., Inc., 05-485 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/3/06) , 924 So.2d 255 . 2007In support of its position, SWB cites Millican v. River Road Const., Inc., 05-485 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/3/06) , 924 So.2d 255 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Farrier
green
2 sentences2025App. 4 Cir. 3/25/15), 162 So.3d 1233, 1240 ; State v. Golden, 2011- 0735, p. 12 (La. 2025App. 4 Cir. 3/25/15), 162 So.3d 1233, 1240 ; State v. Golden, 2011- 0735, p. 12 (La. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Murphy Cormier General Contractor, Inc. v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Iteld v. Four Corners Construction L.P.
green
2 sentences2024App. 4 Cir. 6/5/13), 157 So.3d 702, 718 ). 2024App. 4 Cir. 6/5/13), 157 So.3d 702, 718 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Francois
green
1 sentence2023App. 5 Cir. 1/31/14), 134 So.3d 42, 59 , writ denied, 14-431 (La. 9/26/14), 149 So.3d 261 , this Court discussed the Louisiana Supreme Court’s recognition of a limitation of the Daubert inquiry: In 2003, ten years after adopting Daubert, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized a limitation of the Daubert inquiry. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Francois
green
1 sentence2023App. 5 Cir. 1/31/14), 134 So.3d 42, 59 , writ denied, 14-431 (La. 9/26/14), 149 So.3d 261 , this Court discussed the Louisiana Supreme Court’s recognition of a limitation of the Daubert inquiry: In 2003, ten years after adopting Daubert, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized a limitation of the Daubert inquiry. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
MSOF CORP. v. Exxon Corp.
green
2 sentences2021MSOF Corp., 934 So.2d at 716 -717 When a party submits an affidavit of an expert in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, the trial court is not required to hold a Daubert hearing; rather, the trial court is required to make a threshold determination of whether the expert's affidavit is admissible. 2021MSOF Corp., 934 So.2d at 716 -717 When a party submits an affidavit of an expert in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, the trial court is not required to hold a Daubert hearing; rather, the trial court is required to make a threshold determination of whether the expert's affidavit is admissible. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences2020Id. 19-KA-594 28 The trial court, in its discretion, can determine on a case by case basis, if a Daubert hearing is necessary to test the reliability of expert testimony. 2020Id. 19-KA-594 28 The trial court, in its discretion, can determine on a case by case basis, if a Daubert hearing is necessary to test the reliability of expert testimony. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Walter Mixon Allen, Jr., Mattie Gayle Allen, Barry Lane Allen v. Pennsylvania Engineering Corp., American Sterilizer Company green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Johnson v. Melton green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Celestine
green
2 sentences2018App. 3 Cir. 5/30/12), 91 So.3d 573 , the court rejected the defendant's claim that his attorney was ineffective in failing to request a Daubert hearing on DNA testing that linked the defendant to the crime, as the defendant failed to assert any error in the methodology used by the laboratory that tested the evidence. 2018App. 3 Cir. 5/30/12), 91 So.3d 573 , the court rejected the defendant's claim that his attorney was ineffective in failing to request a Daubert hearing on DNA testing that linked the defendant to the crime, as the defendant failed to assert any error in the methodology used by the laboratory that tested the evidence. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Adolph v. Lighthouse Property Insurance Corp. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Wessinger green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Ajiwoju v. Gronneman green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Kieffer v. Riske green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Browning v. Liberty Mutual Insurance green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Carrier v. City of Amite green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Carrier v. City of Amite neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Hampton green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Jones v. Black neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Jones v. Black neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Cross v. California green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. City of Tuscaloosa green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 351 v. Cooper Natural Resources, Inc. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Lamonica neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Russo v. United States green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Construction Products Research, Inc. v. United States green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Green v. Franco green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. King green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Raiford green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Abshire v. Wilkenson green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Taylor neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Robinson neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.