Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 595 So. 2d 1123.

70 citing documents.

Tommy Taylor v. Randall Taylor, Individually and Randall Taylor d/b/a TNT Auto Repair and Towing La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., (La.
Michael DesParois v. Timmons International, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
Young v. Ford Motor Co.,, Inc., ( La.
Donald R. Modicue v. Prince Of Peace Auto Sale, LLC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., (La.
Expert Riser Solutions, LLC v. Techcrane Int'l, LLC 270 So. 3d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., , 1126 (La.
Justiss Oil Company, Inc. v. Oil Country Tubular Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
“The purpose of the redhibition action in Louisiana, as was the case in Roman law, has been to restore the status quo.”
Justiss Oil Co. v. Oil Country Tubular Corp. 216 So. 3d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
“The purpose of the redhibition action in Louisiana, as was the case in Roman law, has been to restore the status quo.”
Hoffmann v. B & G, Inc. 215 So. 3d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., (La.
Gerald Castille v. St. Martin Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Young [v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., ]; Davis v. Sweeney, 44,997 (La.App.
Castille v. St. Martin Parish School Board 190 So. 3d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Young [v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., ]; Davis v. Sweeney, 44,997 (La.App.
Bailey v. DeLaCruz 143 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Live Oak Homes Corp. v. Carrier Sales & Distribution, LLC 140 So. 3d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Id.; Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Blair v. Bad Boy Inc. 137 So. 3d 1223 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Wilks v. Ramsey Auto Brokers, Inc. 132 So. 3d 1009 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
George L. Bruce v. Ford Motor Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 “A buyer of an automobile who asserts a redhibition claim need not show the particular cause of the defects making the vehicle unfit for the intended purposes, but rather must simply prove the actual existence of such defects.” Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., Crawford v. Abbott Automobile Co., 157 La.
Bruce v. Ford Motor Co. 130 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
|4“A buyer of an automobile who asserts a redhibition claim need not show the particular cause of the defects making the vehicle unfit for the intended purposes, but rather must simply prove the actual existence of such defects.” Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., Crawford v. Abbott Automobile Co., 157 La.
Jones v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. 92 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 91-0561 (La.03/02/92), .
Ledbetter v. Homes by Paige, L.L.C. 110 So. 3d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Huey D. Bonnette, Et Ux. v. Ford Motor Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., (La.
Bonnette v. Ford Motor Co. 88 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“[A] manufacturer is conclusively presumed to have knowledge of defects in the object it produces.” Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., (citing George v. Shreveport Cotton Oil Co., 114 La.
Davis v. Sweeney 31 So. 3d 1184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., Stonecipher v. Mitchell, 26,575 (La.App.2d Cir.05/10/95), .
Lambert v. Ray Brandt Dodge, Inc. 31 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
This case is distinguished from Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., and LSA-C.C.
Sabbath v. Martin 24 So. 3d 1035 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Nelson Radiology Associates, L.L.C. v. Integrity Medical Systems, Inc. 16 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
when faced with the issue of whether nonpecuniary damages were awardable in a redhibitory action, held: | isThus, under Article 1998, which is the controlling article for the type of damages referred to by the redhibition articles (specifically Article 2545), if it can be established that the obligee
Mitchell R. Credeur, Et Ux. v. Champion Homes of Boaz, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
“[A] manufacturer is conclusively presumed to have knowledge of defects in the object it produces.” Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Credeur v. Champion Homes of Boaz, Inc. 6 So. 3d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
“[A] manufacturer is conclusively presumed to have knowledge of defects in the object it produces.” Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
John D. Testa, Jr. v. Kays Enterprises, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
“Multiple defects can collectively form the basis of a redhibitory action even though many of the defects are minor or have been repaired.” Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Explained Aucoin v. Southern Quality Homes, LLC 984 So. 2d 685 La. 2008
In Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., we explained the Roman origins of the redhibitory action and that its purpose was to protect buyers from latent defects undisclosed by corrupt dealers.
Walton Construction Company, LLC v. GM HORNE & COMPANY, INC. 984 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 973 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Bowser v. PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP 971 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
*429 Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Peggy Landry and Dale Landry v. Forest River, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Landry v. Forest River, Inc. 953 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Aucoin v. Southern Quality Homes, LLC 953 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
The Louisiana Supreme Court in Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., held that when the requisites of La.Civ.Code arts.
Kelly G. Aucoin v. Southern Quality Homes, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
The Louisiana Supreme Court in Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., held that when the requisites of La.Civ.Code arts.
Stuck v. Long 909 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Young v. Ford Motor Co., 91-0561 (La.3/2/92), .
Simpson v. RESTRUCTURE PETROLEUM MARK SER. 830 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Heath v. Brandon Homes, Inc. 825 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Stonecipher v. Mitchell, 26,575 (La.App.2d Cir. 05/10/95), .
Pratt v. Himel Marine, Inc. 823 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Young v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.
Austin Homes, Inc. v. Thibodeaux 821 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
[16] See Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Beasley v. Ed's Mobile Homes, Inc. 824 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Morrison v. Allstar Dodge, Inc. 792 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., (La.
Jackson v. Lare 779 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Stonecipher v. Mitchell, 26,575 (La.App.2d Cir.5/10/95), .
McGough v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. 779 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Thomas v. Desire Community Housing Corp. 773 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
the Supreme Court held that article 1998 allows recovery of nonpecuniary damages where the obligee intends to gratify both pecuniary and nonpecuniary interests or where the interest is solely nonpecuniary.
Morris v. United Services Auto. Ass'n 756 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., Rey v. Cuccia, supra ; Casablanca Convertors, Inc. v. Morning Paper, Inc., , (La.App.
McMorris v. Marcotte Builders, LLC 756 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., (La.
McNeely v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. 763 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Young v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., (La.
Ducote v. Perry's Auto World, Inc. 745 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Young v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., (La.
Frentress v. Howard 728 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
Cho v. Royal Oldsmobile Co., Inc. 722 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
See Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.