DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

222 citing documents.

  • Harrison v. Horseshoe Entertainment 823 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    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), .
  • Moore v. Brookshire Grocery Co., Inc. 824 So. 2d 345 La. 2002
    See Kennedy v. Wal-Mart Stores, 98-1939 *346 (La.4/13/99), ; Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, 00-0078 (La.6/30/00), ; White v. Wal-Mart Stores, 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Wheelock v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 822 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    As the supreme court held in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, p. 4 (La.9/9/97), , "[La.
  • Semar v. Continental Casualty Insurance Co. 820 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97); .
  • Campo v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 821 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    The defendant cites the Louisiana Supreme Court decision of White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), , and its progeny for the contention that the statutory constructive notice element requires a claimant to come forward with positive evidence as to the duration of time that the alleged damage-causing condition existed prior to the accident.
  • Dickerson v. Winn-Dixie, Inc. 816 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , Kennedy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98-1939 (La.4/13/99), .
  • Moore v. Brookshire Grocery Co., Inc. 805 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc ., 97-0393 p. 5 (La.9/9/97); .
  • Barrios v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 804 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Wimberly v. B.P. Newman Invstments, Inc. 805 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    The state supreme court has articulated the burden of proof in such cases in White v. Wal-Mart, 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Kimble v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 800 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    9:2800.6 and White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Ceasar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 787 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97); , interpreted the provisions of La.R.S.
  • Turner v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 785 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , the supreme court stated that in order to recover, a plaintiff must prove, in addition to all other elements of the cause of action, each of the enumerated requirements of La.
  • Terry v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 780 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Revised Statute 9:2800.6(C)(1) requires that a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case prove that the condition or object on the floor alleged to have caused the fall existed for some period of time prior to the fall such that “it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care.” The Louisiana Supreme Court concluded in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, p. 4 (La.9/9/97); , that the burden of proving the offending condition or object’s presence rests with the plaintiff,
  • Walters v. Kenner CiCi's 780 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    We are mindful of the Supreme Court's decision in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Hardman v. Kroger Co. 775 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    As emphasized by the supreme court in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.09/09/97), , in order to recover, a claimant must prove, in addition to all other elements of the cause of action, each of the enumerated requirements of La.
  • Davenport v. Albertson's, Inc. 774 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97); .
  • Butler v. Doug's IGA 774 So. 2d 1067 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    9:2800.6 is White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Robinson v. BROOKSHIRES 26 769 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    See also Kennedy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98-1939 (La.04/13/99), ; White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.09/09/97), .
  • Jones v. SUPER ONE FOODS/BROOKSHIRES GROCERY COMPANY 774 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Specifically, Brookshire urges the evidence does not meet the temporal requirement of White v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , to impute constructive notice to the store under R.S.
  • Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 764 So. 2d 37 La. 2000
    9:2800.6, [1] as interpreted by this court in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 764 So. 2d 41 La. 2000
    White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Bellot v. Kmart Corporation 769 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the constructive notice requirement in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393, p. 4-5 (La.9/9/97); -85 , stating: Constructive notice ...
  • Feeney-Passalaqua v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 762 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    See White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Hartford v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 765 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    [.]” White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97); .
  • Nuccio v. Robert 761 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    5th Cir. 11/10/99), , citing White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97); .
  • Rodgers v. Food Lion, Inc. 756 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    9:2800.6, in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Though there is no bright line time period, a plaintiff must show that "the condition existed for such a period of time..."
  • Williams v. Shoney's, Inc. 764 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In so ruling, the trial court noted that "...because plaintiff cannot establish the temporal elements as required by White [v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (1997) ], plaintiff cannot provide the evidentiary support for one of the essential elements of her claim."
  • Henry v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 758 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    See Kennedy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98-1939 (La.4/13/99); and White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97); .
  • Smith v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 750 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    With respect to constructive notice under the provisions of the statute, the supreme court stated in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), : Though there is no bright line time period, a claimant must show that “the condition existed for such a period of time....
  • Oliva v. WINN DIXIE LOUISIANA, INC. 756 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    * * * 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
  • Kedia v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 752 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Baggett v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets 750 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97); .
  • Smart v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 742 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    9:2800.6, in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), -85 , the Supreme Court held: Though there is no bright line time period, a claimant must show that “the condition existed for such a period of time ...” Whether the period of time is sufficiently lengthy that a merchant should have discovered the condition is necessarily a fact question; however, there remains t
  • Wells v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 754 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, p. 4 (La.9/9/97), .
  • D'Antoni v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 754 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    R.S.9:2800.6(C)(1); See White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, p. 7 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Webb v. SEP, INC. 752 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    9:2800.6(B); White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Trotter v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc. 742 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    9:2800.6, as interpreted by the supreme court in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Tantillo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 739 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    | ¡WHIPPLE, J. This case is before us on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97); .
  • Ward v. ITT Specialty Risk Services, Inc. 739 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    [2] In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that, in addition to proving all other elements of the cause of action, the claimant must prove each of the enumerated requirements of *254 La.
  • Zagar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 747 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Wal-Mart urges that the trial court should have instead followed White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97); .
  • Hernandez v. National Tea, Inc. 734 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    The ruling case in interpreting the statute is White v. Walr-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , 1082: It is the plaintiffs burden to prove each element of her cause of action under La.
  • Ross v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc. 734 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In 6White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, p. 1 (La.9/9/97); , the supreme court held: [B]ecause constructive notice is plainly defined to include a mandatory temporal element, we find that where a claimant is relying upon constructive notice under La.
  • Crawford v. RYAN'S FAM. STEAK HOUSES, INC. 741 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Based upon the recent ruling of our supreme court in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , Ryan's makes the following arguments disputing the trial court's ruling and its determination of constructive notice in this case: (i) ...
  • Kennedy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 733 So. 2d 1188 La. 1999
    9:2800.6, as interpreted in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Dufour v. EZ SERVE CONVENIENCE STORES 731 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    9:2800.6(C)(1); White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Riolo v. National Tea Co. 726 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the question of constructive notice under R.S.
  • Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 726 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    9:2800.6 is White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.09/09/97), .
  • Broussard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 741 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97); , the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted La.R.S.
  • Colgin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 726 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , the Court held that under La.
  • Cooper v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 725 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    9:2800.6 as interpreted in White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La.9/9/97), , [1] it is only necessary to address the second assignment of error.