DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 262 So. 2d 377.

120 citing documents.

  • Darlene Ward Pellecer, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Carlos F. Pellecer, and Cynthia Pellecer … La. 2025
    Thereafter, in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., So.2d 377 (1972), drawing upon Penn, supra, this 6 Article 2315 provides, “Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.” We note that Louisiana embraces a broad civilian concept of fault that encompasses any conduct falling below a proper standar
  • Angela Pickard v. amazon.com, Inc. La. 2024
    5 In Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., (1972), which predated the adoption of the Products Liability Act, this court found a domestic distributor of a foreign automobile manufacturer to be a manufacturer for purposes of redhibition.
  • Frank Tony Martin Versus Pham Le Brothers, LLC D/B/A Super Saver Discount, India Imports, LLC D/B/A International Wholesale … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
    In Media Production Consultants v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., -81 (La.
  • Cory P. Roy and Angie Roy v. Dixie Rv Superstores of Acadiana, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    1 Cir.1975), cited by Mr. LeGros on appeal, the first circuit repeated the principle of solidarity described in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., La.
  • Roy v. Dixie RV Superstores of Acadiana, LLC 241 So. 3d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    1 Cir.1975), cited by Mr. LeGros on appeal, the first circuit repeated the principle of solidarity described in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. , , 262 La.
  • Justiss Oil Company, Inc. v. Oil Country Tubular Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    Although the code articles on redhibition appear to only allow a suit by a buyer against a “seller” for redhibitory defects, this Court held in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes–Benz of North America, Inc., So.2d 377 (1972), that the buyer could recover directly from the manufacturer for breach of warranty, despite the fact that there was no privity of contract between them.
  • Justiss Oil Co. v. Oil Country Tubular Corp. 216 So. 3d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    Although the code articles on redhibition appear to only allow a suit by a buyer against a “seller” for redhibitory defects, this Court held in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), that the buyer could recover directly from the manufacturer for breach of warranty, despite the fact that there was no privity of contract between them.
  • Alexander v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. 123 So. 3d 712 La. 2013
    La.Civ.Code art. 2315 and Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Alexander v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. 110 So. 3d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Indeed, the Supreme Court has concluded that “Louisiana has aligned itself with the consumer-protection rule, by allowing a consumer without [contractual] privity to recover, whether the suit be strictly in tort or upon implied warranty.” Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
  • Marseilles Homeowners Condominium Ass'n v. Broadmoor, L.L.C. 111 So. 3d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    See Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972) (“Louisiana has *1106 aligned itself with the consumer-protection rule, by allowing a consumer without privity to recover, whether the suit be strictly in tort or upon implied warranty.”).
  • Aucoin v. Southern Quality Homes, LLC 984 So. 2d 685 La. 2008
    Although the code articles on redhibition appear to only allow a suit by a buyer against a "seller" for redhibitory defects, this Court held in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), that the buyer could recover directly from the manufacturer for breach of warranty, despite the fact that there was no privity of contract between them.
  • Aucoin v. Southern Quality Homes, LLC 953 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    1 Cir. 1975); Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972); comment (c) La.Civ.Code art. 2545.
  • Kelly G. Aucoin v. Southern Quality Homes, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    1 Cir. 1975); Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., (La.
  • Touro Infirmary v. Sizeler Architects 947 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    Touro cites the 1972 opinion of Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz *745 of North America, Inc., , (5/1/72) in support of its breach of contract claim against OMNOVA.
  • Gradney v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc. 900 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., , (1972), recognizing that the others in the chain of title are solidarily liable with the seller.
  • John E. Gradney, Jr. v. Chandelier Homes, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., So.2d 377 (1972), recognizing that the others in the chain of title are solidarily liable with the seller.
  • Touro Infirmary v. Sizeler Architects 900 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    In support of this argument, DesignTex cites, Media Production Consultants v. Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc.
  • Bearly v. Brunswick Mercury Marine Div. 888 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Regardless of these limited articles, our highest court, in dealing with a clear redhibitory claim, pronounced the following in the landmark decision in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , : Louisiana has aligned itself with the consumer-protection rule, by allowing a consumer without privity to recover, whether the suit be strictly in tort or upon implied warranty.
  • Mike Legros v. Arc Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    In support of his argument Mr. LeGros cites the landmark Louisiana Supreme Court case Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
  • LeGros v. ARC Services, Inc. 867 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    In support of his argument Mr. LeGros cites the landmark Louisiana Supreme Court case Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Chrysler Corp. 834 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Chauvin v. Sisters of Mercy Health System, St. Louis, Inc. 818 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Matthews v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 708 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    The seminal case, Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , -81 (1972), created the theory of the de facto manufacturer.
  • Grimaldi v. JP & Sons Contractors 686 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Media Pro Consult, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972), on remand, (La.App.
  • Dixie Roofing v. Allen Parish Sch. Bd. 690 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Laughlin v. Kulkoni, Inc. 643 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    They cite Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972) as authority for this legal theory of recovery.
  • Chenniliaro v. Kaufman & Broad Home Sys. 636 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    In the Louisiana Supreme Court landmark case of Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), arguments similar to those advanced by defendants in this case were presented.
  • MTU of North America, Inc. v. Raven Marine, Inc. 603 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    In Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), the buyer of a Mercedes automobile was allowed to recover, not only against his immediate vendor, but against the distributor who occupied the position of a manufacturer.
  • Dixie Building Material Co. v. Bob L. Whittington & Associates, Inc. 593 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Media Pro Consult, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972), on remand, (La.App.
  • Firmin v. Denham Springs Floor Covering 595 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Buteau v. Leleux 591 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    M & L was classified as a "de facto" manufacturer based in part on the rule first enunciated in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., on remand, (La.App.
  • State ex rel. Division of Administration v. Robert E. McKee, Inc. 584 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Compare factually, Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972); Austin’s of Monroe, (La.App.
  • Hale Farms, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Company 580 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., Bendana v. Mossy Motors, Inc., (La.App.
  • Beth Israel v. Bartley, Inc. 579 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Pitfield v. Dupont Family Playhouses 571 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972), that case is not applicable here, where the relator manufactured only part of the vehicle.
  • Pittman v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. 559 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    1st Cir.1976); and Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz of North American, Inc., , (1972).
  • Lopez v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co. 546 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972); Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Arnold v. Fremin 538 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), the court stated that a distributor may be held liable if it occupied the position of a manufacturer insofar as the consumer was concerned.
  • Williams v. Chrysler Corp. 530 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972); (La.
  • T & J Trucking Co. v. Day Motors, Inc. 518 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Chastant v. SBS-Harolyn Park Venture 510 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972); Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Distinguished Martin v. Henderson 505 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    We are not unmindful of the holding of our Supreme Court in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. M B N A, , 262 So.2d.
  • Rutherford v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 501 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    In Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedez-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), the purchaser of an imported Mercedez-Benz automobile filed a redhibition action against Mercedez-Benz of North America, Inc., the American distributor which supplied the automobile to the dealer.
  • Smith v. Ly 498 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972), which allowed a consumer without privity to recover against the distributor of an automobile for latent defects under the implied warranty of fitness inherent in every sale.
  • Levine v. Live Oak Masonic Housing, Inc. 491 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    See, Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., and Medic Production Consultants, , (1972).
  • Chance v. Stevens of Leesville, Inc. 491 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Civil Code Articles 2475, 2476, 2520; Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Theriot v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 478 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Media Pro Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972), on remand, (La.App.
  • Acadiana Health Club, Inc. v. Hebert 469 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972); (La.
  • Moses v. Ed's Manufactured Housing, Inc. 470 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Civil Code Articles 2475, 2476, 2520; Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Gulf Oil Corp. v. Marine Concrete Structures, Inc. 464 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    The court analogized this situation with that in Media Production Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), “which allowed a consumer without privity to recover against the distributor of an automobile for latent defects under the implied warranty of fitness inherent in every sale.” Aizpurua at page 472.