State ex rel. Sorrel v. Foster
Citations
- 106 La. 425
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. Article 90 of the Constitution of 1879 and Article 94 of the Constitution of 1898 give this court plenary powers of control and general supervision over inferior courts.</p> <p>2. And in the exercise of this power the court will issue its writs in its discretion, according to the exceptional features of each case submitted.</p> <p>3. The writ of mandamus will lie to compel a judge to try a case when he declines to try it on an erroneous determination of a question of practice preliminary to the whole case.</p> <p>4. Act No. 70 of 1886 relieves the owner of stock killed from proving negligence or fault on part of the railway company, in an action to recover the value of the stock.</p> <p>5. Accordingly, a sufficient cause of action is set forth by the owner when he avers his animal has been killed, when and where killed, and that its value is so much.</p> <p>6. As a plaintiff may not prove what he does not allege, so he need not allege that which he does not have to prove to make out his case.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reviewing expert testimony on case reports and noting that except in extremely rare circumstances, these are used to generate hypotheses, not to establish causation
- finding that Dr. Moyé’s analysis of the specificity factor “depart[ed] from rigorous methodology” where he devoted two sentences to his discussion of the factor, one of which was conclusory, and failed to “cite any study” to support his conclusion
- reviewing expert testimony on case reports and noting that except in extremely rare circumstances, these are used to generate hypotheses, not to establish causation
- finding Dr. Plunkett’s opinion unreliable in part because she “fail[ed] to consider evidence that did not support her opinion”
- finding that Dr. Moyé’s opinion on the causal link between Mirena, an intrauterine device, and a disease known as idiopathic intracranial hypertension (“IIH”), was flawed, in part, due to his “failure to consider known contrary evidence” when conducting a Bradford Hill analysis
- finding that the study “on which Dr. Moyé base[d] his strength of association finding stopped well short of finding a strong association,” and the study author “pointedly cautioned” that its finding of a positive association may have been a result of other, external factors
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Blanchard
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.