DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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.

  • LaFrance v. Abraham Lincoln Mercury, Inc. 462 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972).
  • Licausi v. Tullis Townehomes of Tall Timbers, Inc. 452 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Consult, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc.
  • Aizpurua v. Crane Pool Co., Inc. 449 So. 2d 471 La. 1984
    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.
  • Thomas v. W & W CLARKLIFT, INC. 444 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc.
  • Insurance Co. of North America v. Sentinel Safety System, Inc. 437 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Media Production Consultants v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972).
  • Baham v. Community Motors, Inc. 428 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc.
  • Duplechain v. Clausing MacHine Tools 420 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972); (La.App.
  • Amin v. Head 419 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Media Production Consultants v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972).
  • Continental Insurance v. International Harvester Co. 412 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Media Production Consultants, , (1972) established a “consumer protection rule” in Louisiana, based upon the Civil Code redhibition articles, 1 that imposed strict liability upon a manufacturer for the loss of the manufactured article due to a manufacturing defect, despite a lack of privity between the claimant consumer and the manuf
  • Gamble v. Bill Lowrey Chevrolet, Inc. 410 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972).
  • Heap v. Weber Const. Co. of Louisiana, Inc. 407 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N. A., Inc., , (1972), the court specifically stated pecuniary loss resulting from an unusable object is recoverable when there is an express warranty without privity, and it further said it could find no adequate reason for not applying the same rule and allowing recovery when there is an implied warranty without pr
  • Gurtler, Hebert & Co. v. Weyland MacH. Shop, Inc. 405 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972) the Supreme Court, confronted with a redhibition suit between a consumer and a manufacturer allowed the consumer "without privity to recover, whether the suit be strictly in tort or upon implied warranty."
  • DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co. 403 So. 2d 26 La. 1981
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Olmstead v. Perrio 401 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Lehn v. Clearview Dodge Sales, Inc. 400 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972); Clark v. McBride Dodge, Inc., (La.App.
  • Lokey v. Dixie Buick, Inc. 400 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    As there stated, , : `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.'
  • Philippe v. Browning Arms Co. 395 So. 2d 310 La. 1981
    [14] Media Production Consultants v. Mercedes-Benz of N. A., Inc., , (1972).
  • Borne v. Mike Persia Chevrolet Co., Inc. 396 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., 1972, , , "it is not at all certain that this [intermediate appellate] Court has the authority to seriously entertain this particular issue" of whether a manufacturer is governed by La.C.C.
  • LoBrono v. Gene Ducote Volkswagen, Inc. 391 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N. A., Inc., , (1972).
  • Cassey v. Arnaudville Industries, Inc. 393 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Under a long line of jurisprudence starting with Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), the action by the buyer against manufacturers is acceptable even without privity of contract.
  • Bison v. LaHood 390 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Dixon Enterprises, Inc. v. Restaurant Products, Inc. 389 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    As there stated, , : `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.'
  • Cobb v. Insured Lloyds 387 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N. A., Inc., , (1927) and Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, (1978), Hawes is liable in solido with Sauer for the defect in the revolver which caused injury to plaintiff.
  • Hoychick v. Gulf States Toyota, Inc. 386 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    *683 LACK OF PRIVITY In the landmark case of Media Production Consultants, , (1972), our Supreme Court established the rule that both the manufacturer and the dealer may be held liable in solido to the purchaser in a redhibitory action, despite the lack of privity between the purchaser and the manufacturer.
  • Shapiro v. City Stores Co. 391 So. 2d 2 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • John Deere Indus. Equip. Co. v. Willett Timber Co. 380 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Civil Code Articles 2475, 2476, 2520; Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Harris v. Bardwell 373 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972)
  • Huffman-Euro Motors v. PHYSICAL THERAPY, ETC. 373 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972).
  • Moran v. Willard E. Robertson Corp. 372 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    See Media Production Consultants, , (1972).
  • Reeves v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 370 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    The inclusion of the redhibitory claim is somewhat unique because, prior to *206 the landmark decision of Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), this type of case would always be couched in terms of products liability in tort.
  • Matt v. Laperouse 371 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Civil Code Articles 2475, 2476, 2520; Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Laughlin v. Fiat Distributors, Inc. 368 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc.
  • Benard v. Bradley Automotive 365 So. 2d 1382 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    1st Cir. 1967); Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Groth v. International Dispensing Systems 361 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Bentz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Margan v. Precision Motors, Inc. 360 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • White v. Martin GMC Trucks, Inc. 359 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Consult., Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N. A., Inc., , (1972).
  • Perrin v. Read Imports, Inc. 359 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Inc., 1972, , , and is therefore liable as a manufacturer to the dealer on the third-party demand, La.C.C.
  • Bell v. Fiat Distributors, Inc. 357 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (S.Ct., 1972).
  • Burns v. Lamar-Lane Chevrolet, Inc. 354 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972).
  • Alexander v. Burroughs Corporation 350 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N. A., Inc., , (1972); Rey v. Cuccia, supra; Smith v. Max Thieme Chevrolet Company, Inc., supra.
  • Bendana v. Mossy Motors, Inc. 347 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz N.A., Inc., 1972, , .
  • Avoyelles Country Club, Inc. v. Walter Kidde & Co. 338 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    599 , (1971), and Media v. Mercedes-Benz of N. A., Inc., , (1972).
  • First National Bank of Ruston v. Miller 329 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    Smith v. Max Thieme Chevrolet Company, Inc., supra; Media Production Consultants v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , Johnson v. H. W. Parson Motors, Inc., (La.App.
  • Hendricks v. Horseless Carriage, Inc. 332 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    v. Mercedes-Benz of North Amer., , (1972).
  • State Ex Rel. Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates 331 So. 2d 478 La. 1976
    Media Production Consultants, , .
  • Christy-Ann-Lea, Inc. v. Charter Homes of La., Inc. 327 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    Plaintiff relies on the case of Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of N.A., Inc., , (1972) for the proposition that privity of contract is implied between a consumer and a manufacturer.
  • Peoples Fur. & G. v. Carson Hicks/Friedrichs Ref., Inc. 326 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    RECOVERY AGAINST FRIEDRICHS, THE MANUFACTURER In Media Production Consultants, , (1972), our Supreme Court established the rule that both the manufacturer and the dealer may be held liable in solido to the purchaser in a redhibitory action.
  • Gordon v. General Motors Corp. 323 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    Plaintiff cites numerous cases to support his contention that attorney's fees are due in this case, including Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), (La.
  • Townsend v. Cleve Heyl Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. 318 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    A similar contention was raised in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., , (1972), where the Supreme Court held the liability of a manufacturer and its franchise dealer to be solidary against latent defects in a new automobile sold to a consumer.
  • Margan v. Precision Motors, Inc. 317 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975