DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bishop v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 8 So. 2d 701.

20 citing documents.

  • Olympia Minerals, LLC v. H. S. Resources, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    writs denied, 04-2903 and 04-2899 (La.
  • Wiley v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 274 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • White v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 270 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    “His liability arises only when injuries are caused by his negligence; Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Co., La.App.1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Harper v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 257 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    His liability arises only when injuries are caused by his negligence; Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Co., La.App.1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Lang v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 230 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Barker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 230 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Chauvin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 223 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    The duty which the storekeeper owed to his customers was correctly stated by the court as follows: "He must exercise the degree of care that would be exercised by an ordinary prudent man under similar circumstances * * *" "His liability arises only when injuries are caused by his negligence; Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Co., La.App.1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a l
  • Ardoin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 205 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    3rd Cir. 1961); Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth and Company, La.App., ; Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App., ; Benton v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, La.App., .
  • Fish v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 205 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    “His liability arises only when injuries are caused by his negligence; Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Co., La.App.1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Burson v. Pak-A-Sak Service Stores, Inc. 169 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    App.1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Smith v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 166 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Gibson v. J. C. Penney Co. 165 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    ' ‘His liability arises only when injuries are caused by his negligence: Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Co., La.App.1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Gammill v. J. C. Penny Co. 156 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    “His liability arises only when injuries are caused by his negligence; Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Co., La.App.1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store ■or upon the floor unless the object was •dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period •of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Stillwell v. Winn-Dixie Hill, Inc. 146 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    “[4] ‘His liability arises only when injuries are caused by his negligence: Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Co., La.App.1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Cannon v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company 146 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    App.Orl., ; Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Company, La.App.Orl., .
  • Knight v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 142 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    App.1942, , and not as a *514 result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Lejeune v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNTY CO. 136 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    App.1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.
  • Lindsey v. Travelers Indemnity Company 111 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    In connection with the appellant's contention that the decision of the lower court should be reversed, we have also been cited the following cases: Joynes v. Vallost & Dreaux, Inc., La.App., Orleans Cir., 1941, ; Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Company, La.App., Orleans Cir., 1942, ; Peters v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., supra.
  • Meyerer v. SH Kress and Co. 89 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    App.1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it *480 should have been discovered and removed.
  • Peters v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 72 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    1942, , and not as a result of an extraneous object in the store or upon the floor unless the object was dangerous and allowed to remain a source of danger for a longer period of time than that in which it should have been discovered and removed.