DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Auzenne v. Gulf Public Service Co., 181 So. 54.

16 citing documents.

  • Wiley v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 205 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    *140 App. 1st Cir. 1939); (La.App.
  • Hudnall v. Travelers Insurance Co. 148 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    See Auzenne v. Gulf Public Service Co., La.App., ; Lanza v. De Ridder Coca Cola Bottling Co., La.App., ; Watkins v. Gulf Refining Co., 206 La.
  • Bonura v. Barq's Beverages of Baton Rouge 135 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    The law applicable to cases of this kind has been settled since the decision of this Court in Auzenne v. Gulf Public Service Co., La.App., , in which this Court stated: "Our courts recognize the right of a plaintiff to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where suit is brought against the manufacturer or dispenser of foods and beverages for damages resulting from the use and consumption of deleterious and unwholesome foods and beverages manufactu
  • Saunders v. Walker 86 So. 2d 89 La. 1956
    623 ; Auzenne v. Gulf Public Service Co., La.App., ; Auzene v. Gulf Public Service Co., La.App., 188 So.
  • Boucher v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 46 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    App., ; Lanza v. DeRidder Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., ; Auzenne v. Gulf Public Service Co., La.App., .
  • Mayerhefer v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 45 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
  • Piacun v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 33 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., ; Meyers v. Alexandria Coca Cola Bottling Co., Ltd., La.
  • Hake v. Air Reduction Sales Co. 28 So. 2d 441 La. 1946
    623 ; Auzenne v. Gulf Public Service Co., La.App., ; Auzene v. Gulf Public Service Co., La.App., 188 So.
  • Duplantier v. City of Baton Rouge 23 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    and Auzene v. Gulf Public Service Co., 188 So.
  • Meyers v. Alexandria Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 8 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    In that case, , Id., 188 So.
  • Ortego v. Nehi Bottling Works 6 So. 2d 677 La. 1942
    to the public to use the contents as a harmless and refreshing beverage.” This court has never had under' consideration a case involving injury resulting from the explosion of bottled carbonated beverages, and Id., 188 So.
  • Lanza v. De Ridder Coca Cola Bottling Co. 3 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    Under this finding of fact we think the trial judge was correct in applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as was done in the case of Auzenne v. Gulf Public Service Co., La.App., and 188 So.
  • Jenkins v. Bogalusa Coca Cola Bottling Co. 1 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    In the recent case of Auzenne v. Gulf Public Service Company, La.App., , we said: "Our courts recognize the right of a plaintiff to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where suit is brought against the manufacturer or dispenser of foods and beverages for damages resulting from the use and consumption of deleterious and unwholesome foods and beverages manufactured and dispensed f
  • Ortego v. Nehi Bottling Co. 6 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
  • Auzene v. Gulf Public Service Co. 188 So. 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    A detailed discussion of the legal question involved, together with our reasons for our decision and citations in support thereof, appear in , and need not be repeated herein.
  • Overruled Morris v. Roy Motors, Inc. 181 So. 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    This case is easily distinguishable from the case of James Auzenne v. Gulf Public Service Company, La.App., , this day decided, where the- doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was involved and where we overruled an exception of no cause of action and remanded the case for trial.