DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, 938 So. 2d 35.

13 citing documents.

  • Ja'Quarrius Ignont v. Rick Breen DBA Breen's Rapid Lube La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
  • Lee v. Pull-A-Part of New Orleans W., LLC 250 So. 3d 349 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
  • Dortch v. Jane Doe & Chrysler Group, LLC 217 So. 3d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Ryan v. Case New Holland, Inc. 211 So. 3d 611 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • Ron Warren, Ind. & O/B/O Estate of Derek Hebert v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    9/6/06), -55 (quoting Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628 (La.
  • Warren v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 196 So. 3d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., 05-257, p. 28 (La.9/6/06), -55 (quoting Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628 (La.10/30/00), -05 ).
  • Corona v. Teaford 116 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Our Supreme Court reiterated that criteria in Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., 05-0257, pp. 24-25 *801 (La.9/6/06), , citing Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445, pp. 4-5 (La.11/28/00), , 89 as follows: The standard to be used in determining whether a JNOV has been properly granted has been set forth in our jurisprudence as follows: A JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhel
  • Zapalowski v. Campbell 988 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Monteleone 976 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, 05-0257, p. 29 (La.9/6/06), .
  • Clint Desoto v. Ford Motor Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    9/6/06), that “[a] products liability claim is, by its own nature, extremely ‘fact-intensive,’ and as such, the heart of [a plaintiff’s] claim lies with the sufficiency of the evidence submitted at trial.” Pursuant to La.R.S.
  • Desoto v. Ford Motor Co. 975 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Discussion The supreme court observed in Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., 05-257, pp. 7-8 (La.9/6/06), , that “[a] products liability claim is, by its own nature, extremely ‘fact-intensive,’ and as such, the heart of [a plaintiffs] claim lies with the sufficiency of the evidence submitted at trial.” Pursuant to La.R.S.
  • Terrance v. Dow Chemical Co. 971 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    [14] See Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., 05-0257 (La.9/6/06), .
  • Linnear v. CENTERPOINT ENERGY ENTEX/RELIANT 966 So. 2d 36 La. 2007
    1979) (" Res ipsa loquitur does not apply if there is sufficient direct evidence explaining the occurrence and establishing the details of the negligence charged.") Most recently, in Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, 05-257 (La.9/6/06), , we held that a plaintiff cannot take advantage of the doctrine where direct evidence of defendant's possible negligence is available, but could not be considered because the plaintiffs had tampered with the evidence before the defendants could examin