Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So. 2d 1081.

222 citing documents.

Batiste v. United Fire & Cas. Co. 241 So. 3d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Bay v. Jefferson Parish Public Schools 218 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
9/9/97), (“Courts are not free to rewrite laws to effect a purpose that is not otherwise expressed.”).
Luft v. Winn Dixie Montgomery, LLC 228 So. 3d 1269 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
Hazelett v. Louisiana-1 Gaming 210 So. 3d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Bertaut v. Corral Gulfsouth, Inc. 209 So. 3d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Glenda L. Parks v. the Kroger Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Tate v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, L.L.C. 203 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Guillaume v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 198 So. 3d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, 1997-0393 (La.09/09/97), ; Williams v. Piggly Wiggly, 49,010 (La.App.2d Cir.05/14/14), .
Williams-Ball v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 198 So. 3d 195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
In the case of White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that, in addition to all other elements of the cause of action, a plaintiff seeking recovery under R.S.
Foster v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. 193 So. 3d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), ; Glass v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 10-53 (La.
Nash v. Rouse's Enterprises, LLC 191 So. 3d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
1 Cir. 11/1/13) , -18 , writ denied, 13-2780 (La.2/14/14), , citing White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), ; Ross v. Schwegmann Giant Super Mkts., Inc., 98-1036 (La.App.
Upton v. Rouse's Enterprise, LLC 186 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), ; Glass v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 10-53 (La.App.
Regina Williams v. Brookshire Grocery Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Williams v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 182 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), .
Moore v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 186 So. 3d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Collins v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. 182 So. 3d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
5 Cir. 2/26/14) , -84 , writ denied, 14-0881 (La.6/20/14), ; White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), .
Pouncy v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 178 So. 3d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), ; Glass v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 10-53 (La.App.
Evans v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC 177 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Sheffie, 134 So.3d at 84 , citing White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), ; Burns v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt.
Crawford v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 180 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
In addition to proving each of the above three elements, a plaintiff must “come forward with positive evidence showing the damage causing condition | ¿existed for some period of time and that such time was sufficient to place a merchant defendant on notice of its existence.” White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1997-0393 (La.09/09/97), .
Ferlicca v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 175 So. 3d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
The supreme court in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , held that in addition to proving each of the above three elements, a plaintiff ■ must “come forward with positive evidence showing the damage causing condition existed for some period of time and that such time was sufficient to place a merchant defendant on notice of its ^existence.” Turner, supra.
Davis v. Cheema, Inc. 171 So. 3d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In discussing the constructive notice portion of the Merchant Liability Statute, the Supreme Court has concluded that it “does not allow for *992 the inference of constructive notice absent some showing of this temporal element.” White v. Wal-Mart, 97-0393, p. 4 (La.9/9/97), .
Bennette v. Brothers Avondale, L.L.C. 170 So. 3d 1179 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2015
Sheffie, 134 So.3d at 84 , citing White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97); .
Scott v. Dillard's, Inc. 169 So. 3d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Beggs v. Harrah's New Orleans Casino 158 So. 3d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, p. 4 (La.9/9/97); .
Carter v. Hi Nabor Super Market, LLC 168 So. 3d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
9:2800.6B(2) and C(l); White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0893 (La.9/9/97), .
Burns v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. 165 So. 3d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Sheffie, 134 So.3d at 84 , citing White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Grantham v. Eldorado Resort Casino Shreveport 152 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), ; Williams v. Piggly Wiggly, 49,010 (La.App.2d Cir.5/14/14), .
Trench v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery LLC 150 So. 3d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
5 Cir. 7/31/12), 99 So.3d |7696, 699; White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-97-(La.9/9/97), .
Williams v. Wiggly 138 So. 3d 1260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Davis v. U-Haul Co. of Louisiana 142 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Finley v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. 137 So. 3d 193 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.09/09/97), .
Sheffie v. Wal-Mart Louisiana LLC 134 So. 3d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
citing White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Williamson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 130 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
David Guillot v. Dolgencorp, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Clark v. J-H-J Inc. 136 So. 3d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that the temporal element in a slip and fall claim requires a “positive showing” by the plaintiff that the hazardous condition existed for some time prior to the fall.
Norma Richard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Helen M. Calliet-Comeaux v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
The supreme court clarified both Section (B)(2) and (C)(1), the constructive notice requirement, in its opinion in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, pp. 4-5 ( La.9/9/97), -85, and stated as follows: 5 The requirement of Section (B)(2) is that the merchant created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to the occurrence.
Richard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 123 So. 3d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“Whether the period of time is sufficiently lengthy that a merchant should have discovered the condition is necessarily a fact question; however, there remains the prerequisite showing of some time period.” White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393, p. 4 (La.9/9/97), .
Primrose v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 127 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Moy v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 117 So. 3d 611 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Feverly Alexander v. Frank's Five Star Marketing, Inc. D/B/A Rees Street Market La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
9/9/97), made it clear that in considering the application of La.R.S.
Marie Benniefiel v. Zurich American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), Bell v. American General Inv.
Benniefiel v. Stine, L.L.C. 112 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), ; Bell v. American General Inv.
Frank v. Boomtown L.L.C. 106 So. 3d 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, p. 4 (La.9/9/97), and Richardson , 10-262 at p. 4, 55 So.3d at 895 .
Flowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 99 So. 3d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Alonzo v. Safari Car Wash, Inc. 75 So. 3d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See, White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), .
Zeringue v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 62 So. 3d 276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), .
Elizabeth Melancon v. Popeye's Famous Fried Chicken La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Melancon v. Popeye's Famous Fried Chicken 59 So. 3d 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Explained Bertha Gruver v. the Kroger Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
9/9/97), a plaintiff must prove each of the above elements in order to prevail.