Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., 56 So. 906.

52 citing documents.

Aucoin v. Southern Quality Homes, LLC 984 So. 2d 685 La. 2008
432 (1905); Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Porteous v. St. Ann's Cafe & Deli 713 So. 2d 454 La. 1998
919 , (1952); Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Simeon v. Doe 618 So. 2d 848 La. 1993
Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, 129 La.838, (1911).
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. 595 So. 2d 1123 La. 1992
432 (La.1905); Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Chastant v. SBS-Harolyn Park Venture 510 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
The applicable principle of law was stated in Schamens v. Crow, supra, where the court quoted from Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Martin v. Henderson 505 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
See, for example, Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
LaFleur v. John Deere Co. 491 So. 2d 624 La. 1986
See, for example, Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Prejean v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 457 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
The standard of conduct applicable to this case begins with Doyle v. Fuerst & Kramer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Fortmayer v. Schulingkamp 405 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
* * * ’ “In the case of Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Philippe v. Browning Arms Co. 395 So. 2d 310 La. 1981
See, for example, Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Lee v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. 396 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
These cases include the well known case of Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Price v. Overseas Sports, Inc. 362 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Schamens v. Crow 326 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
The applicable legal principle was stated in Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Moreno's, Inc. v. LAKE CHARLES CATHOLIC HIGH SCHS., INC. 315 So. 2d 660 La. 1975
432 (1905); Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer Ltd., , , 40 L.R.A.
Baughman v. Quality Mobile Homes, Inc. 289 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
432, 434 (1905); Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 282 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
733 , (1952); Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of NY 250 So. 2d 754 La. 1971
733 , (1952); Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Thomas v. Gillette Company 230 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
The general rule was stated by our Supreme Court in Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Cub Beverage Co. v. Transportation Equipment Co. 223 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
309 ; Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Minot Hooper Co. v. Crowley Industrial Bag Co. 217 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
733 , ; Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
McCauley v. Manda Brothers Provisions Company 211 So. 2d 637 La. 1968
Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Broussard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 210 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
In Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., 1911, , 56 So.
McCauley v. Manda Brothers Provisions Co. 202 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
These cases include the well known case of Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Penn v. Inferno Manufacturing Corporation 199 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
West v. Hydro-Test, Inc. 196 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
No part of the mechanism is so constructed as to conceal its method of operation or disguise a latent defect or danger Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Musso v. Picadilly Cafeterias, Inc. 178 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Sikes v. B & S Supply, Inc. 164 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
309 ; Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Limited, , 56 So.
Moran v. Insurance Company of North America 146 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Counsel for plaintiffs argues that under Louisiana law, and particularly the doctrine announced in Doyle v. Fuerst and Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Lesher v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company 129 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Illustrative of this principle are: Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., 1911, , 56 So.
Daly v. Abramson 117 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
309 ; Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Limited, , 56 So.
Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 97 So. 2d 389 La. 1957
Doyle v. Fuerst & Kramer, , 56 So.
Johnson v. Hunter 88 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
In Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
McAvin v. Morrison Cafeteria Company of Louisiana 85 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Morrow v. Bunkie Coca Cola Bottling Co. 84 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, 1911, , 56 So.
Mohana v. Woodall 69 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
733 , ; Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Di Pietro v. Le Blanc 68 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
575 ; Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Tuminello v. Mawby 57 So. 2d 666 La. 1952
* * *" In the case of Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Tuminello v. Mawby 57 So. 2d 666 La. 1952
It must, therefore, be presumed to have known it., * * * ” In the case of Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Nichols v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 46 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd. , 56 So.
Boyd v. J. C. Penny Co. 195 So. 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
For instance, in the case of Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Ogden v. Rosedale Inn. 189 So. 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Such is the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Freeman v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 179 So. 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
We realize that this might be a difficult burden for the defendant to carry, but we believe that the ruling is sound and that it is in accord with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court as announced in Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Kelly v. Ouachita Dairy Dealers Cooperative Ass'n 175 So. 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
MacLehan v. Loft Candy Stores, Inc. 172 So. 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Samuel Stamping & Enameling Co. v. Monroe Furniture Co. 171 So. 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Defendant contends that as the heaters were manufactured by plaintiff, their defective character presumptively was known to it, and cites George v. Shreveport Cotton Oil Company, supra; Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Hill v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 170 So. 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
245 ; Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Lee v. Smith 168 So. 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
In the case of Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., , 56 So.
Watts v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 166 So. 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Plaintiff, in the case of Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 So.
Russo v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 161 So. 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
245 ; Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., ; 56 So.
Arndt v. D. H. Holmes Co. 119 So. 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
d milk purchased from the most reputable dealers in this city and manufactured by employees of the highest skill; that no such accident-had happened before; that the condition of the cakes was caused by the abnormally protracted hot weather and was unknown to defendants; they admit that for all such damages as might have been foreseen they are liable under the case of Doyle vs. Fuerst and Kramer, , 56 So.