first assigned error in Louisiana

2019State v. Everett, 13-0322, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/14), 156 So.3d 705, 709 (citing State v. Dorsey, 00-2331, p. 1 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 779 So.2d 1008, 1009 .

2006State v. Sosa, 04-507 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/28/04) , 892 So.2d 633 .

1999The lower court, in granting its exception, relied on Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95); 663 So.2d 19 .

1998Prior to Mr. Rigol's testimony, the plaintiffs requested that the court conduct a preliminary examination to determine whether his investigation, opinions and accident reconstruction complied with the requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993).

1998Prior to Mr. Rigol's testimony, the plaintiffs requested that the court conduct a preliminary examination to determine whether his investigation, opinions and accident reconstruction complied with the requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993).

1998ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE In the first assigned error, defendant argues that the state and the trial court improperly refused to provide the defense with various witnesses' statements containing exculpatory evidence and impeachment material, as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny.

1998ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE In the first assigned error, defendant argues that the state and the trial court improperly refused to provide the defense with various witnesses' statements containing exculpatory evidence and impeachment material, as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny.

1998Prior to Mr. Rigol's testimony, the plaintiffs requested that the court conduct a preliminary examination to determine whether his investigation, opinions and accident reconstruction complied with the requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993).

1997In the present case, plaintiffs, citing Celestine v. Union Oil Co. of California, 94 1868 (La.4/10/95), 652 So.2d 1299 , requested that the trial judge instruct the jury as follows: An owner's liability for vice or defect on the premises is rooted in Civil Code Article 2317 and 2322.

1993Cf. State v. Fontenot, 616 So.2d 1353 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993).

1985As this court recently stated in State v. Shropshire, 468 So.2d 582 (1985).

1950In its application for rehearing, the defendant assigns two errors which it contends we mad'e in our opinion, viz.: (1) “in placing the defendant in the position of an insurer by holding it responsible, under' the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where no negligent acts were proven, solely because the employees were unable to explain the cause of the fire” ; (2) the decision “is in conflict with the principle of law announced by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the case of Davis v. Teche Lines, 1942, 200 La. 1 , 7 So.2d 365 .” With reference to the first assigned error, we definitely state that

1950In its application for rehearing, the defendant assigns two errors which it contends we mad'e in our opinion, viz.: (1) “in placing the defendant in the position of an insurer by holding it responsible, under' the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where no negligent acts were proven, solely because the employees were unable to explain the cause of the fire” ; (2) the decision “is in conflict with the principle of law announced by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the case of Davis v. Teche Lines, 1942, 200 La. 1 , 7 So.2d 365 .” With reference to the first assigned error, we definitely state that