DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Russo v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 161 So. 909.

16 citing documents.

  • Deris v. Finest Foods, Inc. 198 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    • in that the evidence in support of the claim that the plaintiff had swallowed glass was fraught with contradictions, and the claim was rendered éxtremely' doubtful.
  • Redmond v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company 76 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    In Russo v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., , we said: `* * * In considering whether such an accident actually occurred, it is well to bear in mind that the manufacturer necessarily can have no means of disproving by eyewitnesses that the occurrence alleged actually took place.
  • Gray v. Morgan & Lindsey, Inc. 55 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    Russo v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Company, La.App., ; Hill v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Company, La.App., 170 So.
  • Boucher v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 46 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., .
  • Nichols v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 46 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    45, Russo v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., , and other cases) that, where the plaintiff shows by a preponderance of evidence that the beverage contained a foreign substance, that he consumed it and suffered injuries as a result, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to excuse itself from liability by proving to the satisfaction of the court that the fore
  • Mayerhefer v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 45 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    45 , Russo v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., , and other cases) that, where the plaintiff shows by a preponderance of evidence that the beverage contained a foreign substance, that he consumed it and suffered injuries as a result, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to excuse itself from liability by proving to the satisfaction of the court that the fore
  • Piacun v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 33 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., , we said: "* * * In considering whether such an accident actually occurred, it is well to bear in mind that the manufacturer necessarily can have no means of disproving by eyewitnesses that the occurrence alleged actually took place.
  • Basile v. World Bottling Co. 17 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    Russo v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., .
  • Jenkins v. Bogalusa Coca Cola Bottling Co. 1 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    448 ; Russo v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Company, La.App., ; Hill v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., 170 So.
  • Hollis v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 196 So. 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    Russo v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., ; Hill v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., 170 So.
  • Dye v. American Beverage Co. 194 So. 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    45 , Russo v. Louisiana Coco-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., , and other cases) that, where the plaintiff shows by a preponderance of evidence that the beverage contained a foreign substance, that he consumed it and suffered injuries as a result, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to excuse itself from liability by proving to the satisfaction of the court that the fore
  • Comforto v. Cloverland Dairy Products Co. 194 So. 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    45 , and Russo v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Co., La.App., ) that, “in considering whether such an accident actually occurred, it is well to bear in mind that the manufacturer necessarily can have no means of disproving by eyewitnesses that the occurrence alleged actually took place.
  • Kohlman v. Jefferson Bottling Co. 192 So. 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    Russo v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Company, La.App., .
  • Freeman v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 179 So. 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    we said: “In considering whether such an accident actually occurred, it is well to bear in mind that the manufacturer necessarily can have no means of disproving by eyewitnesses that the occurrence alleged actually took place.
  • Hill v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 170 So. 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
  • Watts v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 166 So. 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    claimed that in drinking from a bottle of Coca-Cola she swallowed two small bits of glass which were in the bottle when she purchased it.