Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 358 So. 2d 926.

104 citing documents.

Darlene Ward Pellecer, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Carlos F. Pellecer, and Cynthia Pellecer … La. 2025
Similarly, in Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
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
As a result, the Supplemental Petition is a superseding petition that completely replaced all allegations contained in the original petition.6 Mr. Martin also argues that the present matter falls within a line of cases, such as Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
Victor Bruno v. Brd US, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Del Dean David, Et Ux. v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
1981); Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
Susan and Edward L. Wilhelm v. Mosaic Global Operations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
1981); Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
David v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. 49 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Hebert v. Brazzel, 403 So.2d *1005 1242 (La.1981); Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Allstate Insurance v. Fred's, Inc. 33 So. 3d 976 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
In 1978, the Louisiana Supreme Court had occasion to consider a non-manufacturer seller's liability for its labeling of a product in Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 923 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Chauvin v. Sisters of Mercy Health System, St. Louis, Inc. 818 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
1987), and Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Hoerner v. ANCO Insulations, Inc. 812 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
The Louisiana Supreme Court officially adopted the "professional vendor" theory of liability in Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., [1] , in which the court stated, in pertinent part, as follows: The responsibility of Sears is the same as that of the manufacturer.
Slaid v. Evergreen Indem., Ltd. 745 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Nor can the bank, as suggested by plaintiff, be considered a "professional vendor" of mobile homes as contemplated by Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., which has in any event been legislatively overruled by the passage of the LPLA.
Matthews v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 708 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Plaintiff argues that Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, (La.
Young v. Logue 660 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
See Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 648 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
Co., Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Shuff v. Southern Silica of Louisiana 626 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Plaintiffs' claims against Clemtex depend in part on allegations that by selling a product manufactured by Pulmosan under a Clemtex label, Clemtex was holding itself out as a manufacturer and can be held strictly liable as a manufacturer under the holding of Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Goins v. Galion Mfg. Co. 626 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity Casualty Insurance Co. of New York, 259 La.
Simeon v. Doe 618 So. 2d 848 La. 1993
Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Davis v. Burlingame 607 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
and Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc., (La.
Easton v. Chevron Industries, Inc. 602 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
See Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Moore v. Chrysler Corp. 596 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Id., at 114-115 ; Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. 595 So. 2d 1123 La. 1992
Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Holloway v. Gulf Motors, Inc. 588 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
[2] Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
Home Insurance Co. v. National Tea Co. 577 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Co., Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
Delanzo v. ABC CORP. 572 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, Inc. 571 So. 2d 140 La. 1990
Co., Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., (La.
Johnston v. Norcondo 572 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
599 ,] (1971), and Chappuis [ v. Sears Roebuck and Company, ] *205 supra., is that here personal injury damages are not involved").
Hopper v. Crown 560 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., (La.
Lopez v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co. 546 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
80 , (1972); Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Nelton v. Astro-Lounger Mfg. Co., Inc. 542 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
We initially note that when referring to a "professional vendor"
Weber v. Caterpillar MacHinery Corp. 542 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Article 2545; Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Thomas v. W & W Clarklift, Inc., (La.App.
Antley v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA 539 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
2d 585 (La.1980); Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
Friar v. Caterpillar, Inc. 529 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Beauhall v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 526 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Toups v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 819 (La.1987)
Prather v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc. 526 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
2d 585 (La.1980); Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
Overruled Shortess v. Touro Infirmary 520 So. 2d 389 La. 1988
Weber is contrary to DeBattista, supra; Toups v. Sears Roebuck and Co., Inc., and Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Felice v. Valleylab, Inc. 520 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
Cole v. City of West Lake 517 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
See Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., note 2 at page 929.
Bloxom v. Bloxom 512 So. 2d 839 La. 1987
Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
Chastant v. SBS-Harolyn Park Venture 510 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
80 , (1972); Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Ingram v. Caterpillar Machinery Corp. 510 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc. 507 So. 2d 809 La. 1987
1980); Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
Whittle v. MILLER ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. 507 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
1981); Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
LeBleu v. Homelite Div. of Textron, Inc. 509 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
1981); Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
Rhoto v. Ribando 504 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Distinguished Landry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 504 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
In its first assignment of error, appellant argues that, in finding Sears liable as a manufacturer/seller of a defectively designed product, the trial judge, although not referring to the case by name, must have relied on Chappius v. Sears Roebuck & Co., and that such reliance was erroneous.
Toups v. Sears Roebuck and Co., Inc. 499 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
1st Cir.1977), rev'd on other grounds
Rutherford v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 501 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
In Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Company, plaintiff brought a products liability action after a fragment of steel ricocheted from a hammer he was using causing injury to his eye.
Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc. 500 So. 2d 748 La. 1987
116 , (1955), the assembler of parts supplied by others, Spillers v. Montgomery Ward, supra , the seller who vouches for the product by holding it out as his own, Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Penn v. Inferno Mfg.
Tenneco Oil Co. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. 495 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Bloxom v. Bloxom 494 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986