DocketNumber： No. 95-CA-2214
Citation Numbers： 678 So. 2d 620, 95 La.App. 4 Cir. 2214, 1996 La. App. LEXIS 1475, 1996 WL 429153
Judges： Barry, Byrnes, Ibarry, Iplotkin, Plotkin
Filed Date： 7/31/1996
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/18/2024
concurring in the result in part with written reasons:
Although I agree with the majority’s finding that the court’s appointment of the expert to negotiate with the IRS on behalf of the trust was improper, I disagree with some of the majority’s statements concerning the role of an expert in a civil case. I believe that the majority’s definition of the role of an expert is improperly narrow and restrictive.
Under the provisions of La.C.C.P. art. 192 and La.C.E. art. 706 a court is given the authority to engage the services of an expert in civil cases to fulfill a variety of functions, including the right to operate in a quasi-judicial function. Experts may also be appointed to give opinions in domestic matters and to perform financial and expert analysis. A court has direct and inherent powers to appoint experts which are far greater than that assigned by the majority; the paradigm for expert witnesses is not so limited as the majority implies.