Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Travelers Ins. Co.green2 sentences2022Smith v. Travelers Insurance Co., 418 So.2d 689, 691 (La. 2001Smith v. Travelers Insurance Co., 418 So.2d 689, 691 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982), rev’d on other grounds, 430 So.2d 55 (La.1983). |4The first inquiry to be asked by a court considering whether documents should be exempt from discovery as an attorney work product is as follows: “Were the documents obtained or prepared in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial?” In the instant case, the answer to that inquiry is “no.” The record in the instant case indicates that the investigation report sought by Sim-monses was neither prepared in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for tria | 3 | 3 |
Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.green1 sentence2025Cacamo, 1999-1421, p. 5, 798 So.2d at 1214 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Landis v. Moreau
green
2 sentences2022For example, TPCG requested aerial photographs and the Louisiana Supreme Court " has held that the attorney work product exception to general discovery refers only to writings and does not include tangible things such as ... photographs." Landis, 779 So. 2d at 697 . 2001C.C.P. art. 1424 because "the attorney work product exception to general discovery refers only to writings and does not include tangible things such as videotapes, films, or photographs." Id. at 697 . | 2 | 2001–2022 |
Smith v. Travelers Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2001Smith v. Travelers Insurance Co., 418 So.2d 689, 691 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982), rev’d on other grounds, 430 So.2d 55 (La.1983). |4The first inquiry to be asked by a court considering whether documents should be exempt from discovery as an attorney work product is as follows: “Were the documents obtained or prepared in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial?” In the instant case, the answer to that inquiry is “no.” The record in the instant case indicates that the investigation report sought by Sim-monses was neither prepared in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for tria 1997Smith v. Travelers Insurance Co., 418 So.2d 689, 691 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982), rev’d on other grounds, 430 So.2d 55 (La.1983). | 2 | 1997–2001 |
Moak v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
green
1 sentence1997Code Civ.P. art. 1424, provides a qualified privilege for "writing[s] obtained or prepared... in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial." Under Article 1424, trial preparation materials are not subject to discovery unless the "denial of production or inspection will unfairly prejudice the party seeking the production or inspection in preparing his claim or defense or will cause him undue hardship or injustice." However, in Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 93-0783 (La.1/14/94), 631 So.2d 401 , this court noted that Article 1424 refers only to "writing" and concluded th | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.