Cited by

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

222 citing documents.

Explained Gruver v. Kroger Co. 54 So. 3d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
As explained in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), , a plaintiff must prove each of the above elements in order to prevail.
Richardson v. LOUISIANA-1 GAMING 55 So. 3d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In order to prove constructive notice the statute clearly and unambiguously requires that the claimant prove that the damage causing condition existed for some period of time prior to the occurrence, White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Glass v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 50 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 8/31/04); , citing White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, p. 4 (La.9/9/97); .
Gregory v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 35 So. 3d 458 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , rehearing denied.
Dillon v. LA MADELEINE, INC. 24 So. 3d 1030 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
9/9/97), , 1084-85: [Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2800.6] does not allow for the inference of constructive notice absent some showing of this temporal element.
Tietjen v. City of Shreveport 17 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Co., 99-3479 (La.6/30/00), ; White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), .
Chunn v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 18 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
See White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1997-0393
Linda G. Bonstell v. Brookshire Grocery Company D/B/A Super One Foods La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
BONSTELL v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 15 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), .
Guillory v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. 9 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Phillips v. OLD EVANGELINE DOWNS, LLC 5 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Lisa Phillips v. the Old Evangeline Downs, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Dana Patin v. Evangeline Downs of Louisiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
9/9/97), the supreme court discussed the temporal element of the constructive notice definition and held that a claimant must “come forward with positive evidence showing that the damage-causing condition existed for some period of time, and that such time was sufficient to place the merchant defendant on notice of
Patin v. Evangeline Downs of Louisiana, Inc. 3 So. 3d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393, p. 1 (La.9/9/97), , the supreme court discussed the temporal element of the constructive notice definition and held that a claimant must “come forward with positive evidence showing that the damage-causing condition existed for some period of time, and that such time was sufficient to place the merchant defendant on notice of its
Heath v. ITT HARTFORD INS. CO. 999 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.09/09/97), .
Hubbard v. AP3 INVESTMENTS, LLC 997 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Rowell v. Hollywood Casino Shreveport 996 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), ; Hardman v. Kroger Company, 34,250 (La.App.2d Cir.12/6/00), .
Morrison v. BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY, INC. 980 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Roslyn Morrison v. Brookshire Grocery Company, Inc. D/B/A Super One Foods La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
MacK v. Shoney's Inc. 983 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, p. 5 (La.9/9/97), .
Crisler v. Paige One, Inc. 974 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), ; Bell v. American General Inv.
Baugh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 966 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
9/9/97), ; Vergin v. McDonald's Restaurants of Louisiana, Inc., 97-2471 (La.
Lester Blackman v. Brookshire Grocery Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Mildred Kirklin, Et Vir v. Brookshire Grocery Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
9/9/97), -85(footnotes omitted): This statute is clear and unambiguous.
Blackman v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 966 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
First, Super One asserts that the trial court manifestly erred in finding that Plaintiffs met the burden of proof regarding constructive notice demanded by White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), .
Wright v. SCC Service Solutions, Inc. 968 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Boeshans v. Petsmart, Inc. 951 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
*417 White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , 1802 Our review of the trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment is de novo.
Melton v. Smith 940 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , the concept of constructive notice set forth in the merchant's statute is addressed.
Hernandez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 930 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , 1084 This court has followed White in holding that a simple showing that the condition existed is insufficient for a finding of liability and recovery.
Roberts v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 926 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Albert L. Roberts, Jr., Et Ux. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Hamilton v. Royal Intern. Petroleum Corp. 934 So. 2d 25 La. 2006
Co., 99-3479, p. 4 (La.6/30/00), ; White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393, p. 4 (La.9/9/97), .
Carter v. Duhe 921 So. 2d 963 La. 2006
See White v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), (courts are not free to rewrite laws to effect a purpose that is not otherwise expressed).
Bell v. American General Inv. LLC 911 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), ; Jones v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 37,117 (La.App.
Nelson v. Southeast Food, Inc. 892 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), ; Allen v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 37,352 (La.App.2d Cir.6/25/03), .
Birdsong v. Hirsch Memorial Coliseum 889 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
9:2800.6(C)(1) as addressed by our supreme court in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , is included in the plaintiffs' burden of proof.
Billye S. Cohen, Et Vir v. Brookshire Brothers, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Cohen v. Brookshire Brothers, Inc. 887 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Oster v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 881 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[5] White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Sanders v. Backus True Value Hardware, Inc. 877 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Bridget J. Dotson v. Brookshire Grocery Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Dotson v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 872 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0893 (La.9/9/97), .
Lousteau v. K-Mart Corp. 871 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[2] White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Menjivar v. Rouse's Enterprises, LLC 865 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/997), , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the burden of proof imposed on a plaintiff by the above cited statute.
Allen v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 850 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
Rhea v. Winn Dixie Market Place Store 849 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a claimant relying upon constructive notice under this statute must come forward with positive evidence showing not only that the damage-causing condition existed for some period of time, but also that the time period was sufficient to place the merchant defendant on notice of t
Jones v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 847 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), ; Alexander v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 96-1598 (La.App.
Gray v. Investment Cars Unlimited, Inc. 836 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , the Supreme Court held that the constructive notice provision contains the "temporal element," requiring the plaintiff to make a positive showing of the existence of a hazardous condition prior to the fall.
Bassett v. Toys" R" US Delaware, Inc. 836 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
*469 Kennedy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98-1939 (La.04/13/99), -91 , citing White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.09/09/97), -85 .
Davis v. M & E Food Mart, Inc. No. 2 829 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
*1199 The supreme court clarified the constructive notice requirement in its opinion in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .