DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tillman v. Johnson, 612 So. 2d 70.

22 citing documents.

  • Deanna Smith v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    183-84 (footnote omitted), the supreme court further explained: the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm [is] “a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts.” Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-1174, p. 4 (La.3/4/98), ( (per curiam)).
  • Evelyn Burlison v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    9 We have described the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm as “a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts.” Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-1174, p. 4 (La.3/4/98), ( (per curiam)).
  • Rose George and Melvin George v. Abc Insurance Company and Southern University of New Orleans La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
    The Court stated, in pertinent part: We have described the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm as “a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts.” Reed v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., [19]97–1174, p. 4 (La.3/4/98), ( (per curiam)).
  • Demetric Tanner v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    4/10/15), 3 We have described the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm as “a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts.” Reed v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 97–1174, p. 4 (La.3/4/98), ( (per curiam)).
  • Tanner v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov't 273 So. 3d 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    3/4/98), , 364 ( (per curiam)).
  • Grossie v. MGM Props., Inc. 269 So. 3d 921 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • Crystal Grossie v. Mgm Properties, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    [W]hether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm “is a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts.”
  • Cangelosi v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C. 252 So. 3d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    3/4/98), , 364 (quoting Tillman v. Johnson , (La.
  • Murphy v. Savannah 246 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    3/4/98), , 364 (quoting Tillman v. Johnson , (per curiam) ).
  • Graupmann v. Nunamaker Family Ltd. Partnership 136 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Inc., 97-1174, p. 4 (La.3/4/98), ( (per curiam)).
  • Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings 113 So. 3d 175 La. 2013
    We have described the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm as “a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts.” Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-1174, p. 4 (La.3/4/98), ( (per curiam)).
  • Babino v. Jefferson Transit 110 So. 3d 1123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    We acknowledge that whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm “is a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts.”
  • Burns v. CLK Investments V, L.L.C. 45 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Jeansonne v. South Central Bell Telephone Co. 8 So. 3d 613 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
  • Wiley v. Sanders 796 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Tillman v. Johnson, 92-3277 (La.02/05/93), .
  • Ebarb v. Guinn Bros., Inc. 728 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Tillman v. Johnson, 92-3277 (La.2/5/93), .
  • George v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 722 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    stated that whether or not a condition presents an unreasonable risk of harm "is a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or the trier of the facts."
  • Brunet v. State 715 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    3/4/98); , (per curiam).
  • Godfrey v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. 718 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    See Tillman v. Johnson, 92-C-3277 (La.2/5/93), (reversing summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff).
  • Small v. Baloise Ins. Co. of America 753 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    which reversed summary judgment for the defendants.
  • Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 708 So. 2d 362 La. 1998
    (per curiam); Oster v. Dep't of Transp.
  • Tillman v. Johnson 652 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995