DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., 387 So. 2d 585.

130 citing documents.

  • Marshall v. Jazz Casino Co. 197 So. 3d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    See generally Brown v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., (Escalators are “not unreasonably dangerous ‘per se’” _); Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (in negligence action, no evidence that child injured on escalator was “misbehaving or that he deliberately wedged his foot in the machine.”).
  • Jimenez v. OMNI ROYAL ORLEANS HOTEL 66 So. 3d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., Oster v. Dep’t of Transp.
  • Burns v. CLK Investments V, L.L.C. 45 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In determining whether a risk is reasonable or unreasonable, the factfinder’s task is to balance the probability and magnitude of the risk against the utility of the thing, Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Murphy v. City of New Orleans 25 So. 3d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • McCloud v. Housing Authority of New Orleans 987 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    4 Cir. 8/29/91) , , citing
  • Hebert v. ANCO Insulation, Inc. 835 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Brown v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., see also Francis v. American Well Service and Drilling, Inc., (La.App.
  • Seal v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 816 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Vigh v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 706 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • McCarthy v. First Financial Ins. 705 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Blanchard v. STATE, THROUGH PARKS & REC. COM'N 702 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    and in deciding the scope of duty or legal cause under the duty/risk analysis.
  • Blanchard v. State ex rel. Parks & Recreation Commission 702 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    ’ and in deciding the scope of duty or legal cause under the duty/risk analysis.
  • Cappo v. Savage Industries, Inc. 691 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Hunt v. City Stores, Incorporated, (La.
  • Migues v. City of Lake Charles 682 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Billiot v. State 654 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Gaspard v. Pargas of Eunice, Inc., (La.App.
  • Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd. 650 So. 2d 712 La. 1995
    See, e.g., Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., ("In the absence of some greater fault being shown on the part of either, the obligation is solidary").
  • Olivier v. Boudreaux 649 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    our Supreme Court set forth the principles applicable in determining whether a risk is unreasonable, stating: The judicial process involved in deciding whether a risk is unreasonable under Article 2317 is similar to that employed in determining whether a risk is unreasonable in a traditional negligence problem, and in deciding the scope of duty or legal cause under the duty risk analysis.
  • Thompson v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp. 639 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    (citing Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., ).
  • Winchell v. Johnson Properties, Inc. 640 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Gaspard v. Pargas of Eunice, Inc., (La.App.
  • Guilfore v. DH Holmes Co., Ltd. 631 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    The judicial process involved in deciding whether a risk is unreasonable under article 2317 is similar to that employed in determining whether risk is unreasonable in a traditional negligence problem, Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., , (La.
  • 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.
  • Burton v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, Inc. 623 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Simeon v. Doe 618 So. 2d 848 La. 1993
    See Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., and Halphen .
  • Cockerham v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 615 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Consider the following observations by the supreme court in Entrevia : "The judicial process involved in deciding whether a risk is unreasonable under Article 2317 is similar to that employed in determining whether a risk is unreasonable in a traditional negligence problem, and in deciding the scope of duty or legal cause under the duty/risk analysis.
  • Hughes v. Green 609 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    See Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Smith v. State Through Dept. of Public Safety 620 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (construing a service contract provision with language identical to that in this case, we found the store owner was the sole custodian of the escalator); see also Brown [v. Otis Elevator Co.], supra, 535 So.2d [525] at 527 [(La.App.
  • Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. 601 So. 2d 1355 La. 1992
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (construing a service contract provision with language identical to that in this case, we found the store owner was the sole custodian of the escalator); see also Brown, supra, 535 So.2d at 527 .
  • Paulk Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Sierra Chemical Co. 599 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Marcantel v. Karam 601 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Gaspard v. Pargas of Eunice, Inc., (La.App.
  • Scamardo v. New Orleans Stevedoring Co. 595 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    Entrevia, supra ; Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Orleans Parish School Bd. v. City of New Orleans 585 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Epps v. Society of the Holy Family 583 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Co., supra; Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Alexander v. City of Lafayette 584 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., "
  • Oster v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 582 So. 2d 1285 La. 1991
    [5] See Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • 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.
  • Oster v. Department of Transportation & Development, State of Louisiana 572 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    1st Cir.1983), citing Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (La.
  • Delanzo v. ABC CORP. 572 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    599 , (1971); Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, Inc. 571 So. 2d 140 La. 1990
    Co., Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., (La.
  • Maples v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 567 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., "
  • Sistler v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 558 So. 2d 1106 La. 1990
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Breeden v. Valencia, Inc. 557 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    In determining reasonableness, *308 the court is to balance the probability and magnitude of the risk against the utility of the thing, Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (La.
  • Dillon v. Louisiana Power and Light 557 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Lirette v. State Farm Insurance Co. 554 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    (citing Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., as a traditional negligence case); Marshall v. Beno Truck Equipment, Inc., (La.App.
  • Bell v. State 553 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Lopez v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co. 546 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    Insofar as defendants are concerned between themselves it might arguably make a difference if the design or manufacturing defect were not so evident that either party should have noted the other's error; but neither establishes that the injury was attributable exclusively to the other, and thus each is entitled not to indemnity from the other but only to contribution of half; "
  • McCoy v. Otis Elevator Co., Inc. 546 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    1987); Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., *231 (La.1980).
  • Addison v. Williams 546 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    2 and Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., "
  • Surgi v. Otis Elevator Co. 541 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    Products Liability Claim Against Otis The court in Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., set out the standard of proof in a product liability claim, as follows: ...[U]nder Weber [ Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., ], the plaintiff in a products liability suit must only prove that the product was defective, i.e., unreasonably dangerous to normal u
  • Rodrigue v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. 540 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Dietrich v. Allstate Ins. Co. 540 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (La.
  • Antley v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA 539 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    Co., Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.