non-exclusive factors in Louisiana

2003Daubert also held that, even under Rule 702, "the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct. at 2795 . *695 The trial court in fulfilling its gatekeeping function with respect to admitting expert testimony should consider the following non-exclusive factors: 1) whether a theory or technique "can be (and has been tested)"; 2) "whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication"; 3) "the known [or] potential rate of error" in using a particular scientif

2003Daubert also held that, even under Rule 702, "the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct. at 2795 . *695 The trial court in fulfilling its gatekeeping function with respect to admitting expert testimony should consider the following non-exclusive factors: 1) whether a theory or technique "can be (and has been tested)"; 2) "whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication"; 3) "the known [or] potential rate of error" in using a particular scientif

2025Orgeron, 93-1353, pp. 4-5, 639 So.2d at 227 (citing Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., 468 So.2d 1159 (La.1985)).

2025Orgeron, 93-1353, pp. 4-5, 639 So.2d at 227 (citing Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., 468 So.2d 1159 (La.1985)).

2011Id. |inIn Daubert, supra, the United State Supreme Court established the following non-exclusive factors to be considered by district courts to determine the admissibility of expert testimony: 1) the “testability” of the scientific theory or technique; 2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; 3) the known or potential rate of error; and, 4) whether the methodology is generally accepted in the scientific community.

2008In Cheairs, 861 So.2d at 541 , our Louisiana supreme court stated the following: Daubert established the following non-exclusive factors to be considered by district courts to determine the admissibility of expert testimony: (1) The "testability" of the scientific theory or technique; (2) Whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) The known or potential rate of error; and (4) Whether the methodology is generally accepted in the scientific community.

2008The Messinger court then listed the non-exclusive factors developed in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 521 F.2d 360 (3rd Cir.1975), regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), for use by trial judges when considering whether a partial judgment should be certified as appealable, and for use by appellate courts when conducting de novo reviews in matters where the trial court fails to give explicit reasons for the certification.

2006In re: Chaisson, supra at 266 , described the following non-exclusive factors to be used in determining the appropriate sanction in a judicial discipline matter: (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge's official capacity or in his private life; (e) whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred; (f) whether the judge has evidenced an e

2006When the trial court fails to state its reasons, we shall conduct a de novo review to determine whether a reasonable basis existed for the certification of finality, utilizing the non-exclusive factors outlined in Motorola, Inc. v. Associated Indemnity Corporation, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 16-17 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/22/03) , 867 So.2d 723, 732 .

2005Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Cheairs v. DOTD, *566 XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.12/3/03), 843 So.2d 383 ; Davis v. American Home Products, XXXX-XXXX, P. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/04), 844 So.2d 242, 250 ; Doe v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/8/02), 823 So.2d 360, 363 ; Clement v. Griffin, 634 So.2d 412, 427 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 637 So.2d 478 , 479 (1994).

2005Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Cheairs v. DOTD, *566 XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.12/3/03), 843 So.2d 383 ; Davis v. American Home Products, XXXX-XXXX, P. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/04), 844 So.2d 242, 250 ; Doe v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/8/02), 823 So.2d 360, 363 ; Clement v. Griffin, 634 So.2d 412, 427 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 637 So.2d 478 , 479 (1994).

2005Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Cheairs v. DOTD, *566 XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.12/3/03), 843 So.2d 383 ; Davis v. American Home Products, XXXX-XXXX, P. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/04), 844 So.2d 242, 250 ; Doe v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/8/02), 823 So.2d 360, 363 ; Clement v. Griffin, 634 So.2d 412, 427 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 637 So.2d 478 , 479 (1994).

2005Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Cheairs v. DOTD, *566 XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.12/3/03), 843 So.2d 383 ; Davis v. American Home Products, XXXX-XXXX, P. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/04), 844 So.2d 242, 250 ; Doe v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/8/02), 823 So.2d 360, 363 ; Clement v. Griffin, 634 So.2d 412, 427 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 637 So.2d 478 , 479 (1994).