Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rey v. Cuccia, 298 So. 2d 840.

185 citing documents.

F & S OFFSHORE v. Serv. MacH. & Shipbuilding 430 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Benoit v. Ryan Chevrolet 428 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Harris v. Atlanta Stove Works, Inc. 428 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Baham v. Community Motors, Inc. 428 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Peyton v. Charvet's Garden Center 427 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Tuttle v. Lowrey Chevrolet, Inc. 424 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
The standard of proof for proving such a (La.
Storey v. Lambert's Limbs & Braces, Inc. 426 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Cox v. Lanier Business Products, Inc. 423 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
2520, 2521, 2530; Womack and Adcock v. 3M Business Products Sales, Inc., (La.
Coleman v. Landry & Turner, Inc. 423 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Dearing v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc. 423 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Lovell v. Earl Grissmer Co., Inc. 422 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Reliable Rubber & Plastic Machinery Co. v. Wirt Manufacturing Inc. 420 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Melancon v. Continental Oil Co. 420 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
held, on page 845, that: “The consumer’s action is enforceable against the manufacturer at the same time and at least within the same year following the sale to the consumer, Article 2534, as it is enforceable against the seller.
Vance v. Emerson 420 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
As to the first issue raised on appeal, at 842 (La.1974) set forth the current state of our law in regard to actions in redhibition.
McClinton v. Reid 417 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
2475, 2476 and 2520; Gamble v. Bill Lowrey Chevrolet, Inc., (La.
Guthrie v. Rudy Brown Builders, Inc. 416 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
Holden v. Clearview Dodge Sales, Inc. 416 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Anselmo v. Chrysler Corporation 414 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
-843 (La.1979) set forth the current state of our law in regard to actions in redhibition.
Leonard v. Daigle Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc. 413 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
It asserts that whether or not the defect was in the "manufacture or design" of the vehicle is immaterial to a determination of the manufacturer's liability, which, inter alia, embodies the general rule that a manufacturer is presumed to know of any defects in its product.
Dunn v. Redman Homes, Inc. 411 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Custom Metal & (La.App.
Continental Insurance v. International Harvester Co. 412 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
which involved a consumer suit against the manufacturer and retail seller to recover the purchase price of a camper trailer that came apart after some 200 miles of use.
Champion v. Panel Era Mfg. Co. 410 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Ball v. Ford Motor Co. 407 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Hebert v. Brazzel 403 So. 2d 1242 La. 1981
Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Foster v. Marshall, supra ; Amco Underwriters of Audubon Ins.
Olmstead v. Perrio 401 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
said the following with regard to the sale of products with hidden defects: ‘In Louisiana sales, the seller is bound by an implied warranty that the thing sold is free of hidden defects and is reasonably fit for the product’s intended use.
Evangeline Etc. v. Coleman Oldmobile, Inc. 402 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Lee v. Shaw 402 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Lokey v. Dixie Buick, Inc. 400 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
4th Cir. 1980), wherein we noted at 861-862: "-843 (La.1974), the Supreme Court, regarding actions in redhibition, stated: `A redhibitory defect entitling the buyer to annul the sale is some defect in the manufacture or design of a thing sold "which renders it either absolutely useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect that it must be supposed that th
Ford v. Dixie Buick, Inc. 400 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Philippe v. Browning Arms Co. 395 So. 2d 310 La. 1981
First Mortgage Investors v. CMF & Associates, Inc. 393 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Lee v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of US 391 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Magee Motors, Inc. v. Moran 393 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Cassey v. Arnaudville Industries, Inc. 393 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Dixon Enterprises, Inc. v. Restaurant Products, Inc. 389 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
-843 (La.1974), the Supreme Court, regarding actions in redhibition, stated: "A redhibitory defect entitling the buyer to annul the sale is some defect in the manufacture or design of a thing sold `which renders it either absolutely useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect that it must be supposed that th
Hoychick v. Gulf States Toyota, Inc. 386 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
See also, Reeves v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., (La.App.
John Deere Indus. Equip. Co. v. Willett Timber Co. 380 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Cernigliaro v. Marquis Marine, Inc. 381 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
4th Cir. 1972); Wade v. McInnis-Peterson Chevrolet, Inc., supra.
Ashley v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 380 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Radalec, Incorporated v. Automatic Firing Corp., 228 La.
Riche v. Krestview Mobile Homes, Inc. 375 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Custom Metal & (La.App.
Harris v. Bardwell 373 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
CC 2546, Smith v. Max Thieme Chevrolet Company, Inc., (La.App.
Moran v. Willard E. Robertson Corp. 372 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Reeves v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 370 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
That case, and its progeny, put to rest any requirement of privity as between the purchaser of the defective product and the manufacturer of that product in a suit to recover under the Codal articles on redhibition.
Matt v. Laperouse 371 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
said the following with regard to the sale of products with hidden defects: “In Louisiana sales, the seller is bound by an implied warranty that the thing sold is free of hidden defects and is reasonably fit for the product’s intended use.
CT Boudreaux Lbr. Co. v. Sherrwood Homes 371 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
2545 [1] authorizes against a seller who knew the defect (including, by imputation of knowledge, a manufacturer; Rey v. Cuccia, La.1974, ).
Weber v. Mathews 367 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Hob's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Roch [Poche], ([La.]1974); , ([La.]1974)."
Robertson v. Jimmy Walker Chrysler-Plymouth 368 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Civil Code Article 2545; Gonzales v. Southwest Mobile Homes, Inc., (La.App.
Fleur De Leis Apts v. DAVIDSON SASH, ETC. 364 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Clinkscales v. Superior Pontiac-GMC, Inc. 365 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Benard v. Bradley Automotive 365 So. 2d 1382 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
where recovery for the installation of a trailer hitch was allowed as damages in connection with the rescission of the sale of a camper trailer.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by