7 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2023 1 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. Shannongreen2 sentences2001(Citing Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., 746 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a risk is not material unless expert testimony can establish its existence, nature and likelihood of occurrence); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (expert testimony essential to determine existence and likelihood of risk); Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., P.S., 37 Wash.App. 650 , 681 P.2d 1305 (1984) (holding that medical testimony is necessary to prove the first part of the test because medical training is needed to be knowle 2001(Citing Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., 746 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a risk is not material unless expert testimony can establish its existence, nature and likelihood of occurrence); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (expert testimony essential to determine existence and likelihood of risk); Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., P.S., 37 Wash.App. 650 , 681 P.2d 1305 (1984) (holding that medical testimony is necessary to prove the first part of the test because medical training is needed to be knowle | 1 | 1 |
Jerry W. Canterbury v. William Thornton Spence and the Washington Hospital Center, a Body Corporategreen1 sentence2001(Citing Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., 746 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a risk is not material unless expert testimony can establish its existence, nature and likelihood of occurrence); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (expert testimony essential to determine existence and likelihood of risk); Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., P.S., 37 Wash.App. 650 , 681 P.2d 1305 (1984) (holding that medical testimony is necessary to prove the first part of the test because medical training is needed to be knowle | 1 | 1 |
Pullman-Standard v. Swintgreen2 sentences1999The first part of the analysis involves only a determination of historical facts, but the second is a mixed question of law and fact: "[T]he historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the [relevant] statutory [or constitutional] standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated." *414 Pullman[-]Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289, n. 19 , 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1791, n. 19 , 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). * * * [W]e hasten to point out that a reviewing court should 1999The first part of the analysis involves only a determination of historical facts, but the second is a mixed question of law and fact: "[T]he historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the [relevant] statutory [or constitutional] standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated." *414 Pullman[-]Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289, n. 19 , 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1791, n. 19 , 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). * * * [W]e hasten to point out that a reviewing court should | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans
green
1 sentence2023Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, 05- 0979 (La. 4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1202, 1211 .5 In the subject provision of the Home Rule Charter, there are two prepositions in the first part of the rule: “of” and “within”. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
green
2 sentences2014The first part of that test is whether there is a single act or actions by which the nonresident defendant “ ‘purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and |¿protections of its laws.’” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 , 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). 2014The first part of that test is whether there is a single act or actions by which the nonresident defendant “ ‘purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and |¿protections of its laws.’” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 , 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hanson v. Denckla
green
2 sentences2014The first part of that test is whether there is a single act or actions by which the nonresident defendant “ ‘purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and |¿protections of its laws.’” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 , 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). 2014The first part of that test is whether there is a single act or actions by which the nonresident defendant “ ‘purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and |¿protections of its laws.’” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 , 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Superior Supply v. Assoc. Pipe & Supply
green
1 sentence2008Id. * * * The first part of the test requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Acosta v. Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hosp.
green
1 sentence2003Acosta v. Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hospital, 545 So.2d 1053 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1989), writs denied, 551 So.2d 637 , 638 (La.1989). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
First National Bank of Commerce, New Orleans v. Sutherlin
green
1 sentence2003Acosta v. Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hospital, 545 So.2d 1053 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1989), writs denied, 551 So.2d 637 , 638 (La.1989). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Sagala v. Tavares
green
2 sentences2001(Citing Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., 746 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a risk is not material unless expert testimony can establish its existence, nature and likelihood of occurrence); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (expert testimony essential to determine existence and likelihood of risk); Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., P.S., 37 Wash.App. 650 , 681 P.2d 1305 (1984) (holding that medical testimony is necessary to prove the first part of the test because medical training is needed to be knowle 2001(Citing Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., 746 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a risk is not material unless expert testimony can establish its existence, nature and likelihood of occurrence); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (expert testimony essential to determine existence and likelihood of risk); Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., P.S., 37 Wash.App. 650 , 681 P.2d 1305 (1984) (holding that medical testimony is necessary to prove the first part of the test because medical training is needed to be knowle | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Leonard Harbeson, Jean Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., and the United States of America
green
1 sentence2001(Citing Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., 746 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a risk is not material unless expert testimony can establish its existence, nature and likelihood of occurrence); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (expert testimony essential to determine existence and likelihood of risk); Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., P.S., 37 Wash.App. 650 , 681 P.2d 1305 (1984) (holding that medical testimony is necessary to prove the first part of the test because medical training is needed to be knowle | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001(Citing Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., 746 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a risk is not material unless expert testimony can establish its existence, nature and likelihood of occurrence); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (expert testimony essential to determine existence and likelihood of risk); Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., P.S., 37 Wash.App. 650 , 681 P.2d 1305 (1984) (holding that medical testimony is necessary to prove the first part of the test because medical training is needed to be knowle 2001(Citing Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., 746 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a risk is not material unless expert testimony can establish its existence, nature and likelihood of occurrence); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (expert testimony essential to determine existence and likelihood of risk); Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., P.S., 37 Wash.App. 650 , 681 P.2d 1305 (1984) (holding that medical testimony is necessary to prove the first part of the test because medical training is needed to be knowle | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Spence v. Canterbury
green
1 sentence2001(Citing Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., 746 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a risk is not material unless expert testimony can establish its existence, nature and likelihood of occurrence); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (expert testimony essential to determine existence and likelihood of risk); Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., P.S., 37 Wash.App. 650 , 681 P.2d 1305 (1984) (holding that medical testimony is necessary to prove the first part of the test because medical training is needed to be knowle | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In re Engler
green
1 sentence2001(Citing Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc., 746 F.2d 517 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a risk is not material unless expert testimony can establish its existence, nature and likelihood of occurrence); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (expert testimony essential to determine existence and likelihood of risk); Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., P.S., 37 Wash.App. 650 , 681 P.2d 1305 (1984) (holding that medical testimony is necessary to prove the first part of the test because medical training is needed to be knowle | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Broussard v. Dept. of Transp. & Dev.
green
1 sentence1997Broussard v. Department of Transportation & Development, 539 So.2d 824 (La.App. 3d Cir.1989). 1. | 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.