DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Woods, 512 So. 2d 839.

111 citing documents.

  • Brady Hardisty Vs. La. 2025
    3d 229, 231 , we explained the use of the term “reasonably anticipated use” in the LPLA was intended to narrow the prior law: Notably, this definition is narrower in scope than its pre-LPLA counterpart, “normal use,” which included “all reasonably foreseeable uses and misuses of the product,” see Bloxom v. Bloxom , (definition of “normal use”), but, like “normal use,” what constitutes a reasonably anticipated use is ascertained from the point of view of the manufacturer at the time of manufactur
  • Derrick Mills Versus Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
    “Whether a particular warning or instruction is adequate is a question for the trier of fact.” Jack, supra at 1259, (La.
  • Dino Vincent Tuminello, Sr. and Tiffany Tuminello v. Abc Insurance Company, Epic Entertainment, LLC D/B/A Epic Entertainment Amusement … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    Several factors come into play in determining the adequacy of the warning, namely: (1) “the severity of the danger,” (2) the likelihood of successful communication of the warning to foreseeable consumers, (3) “the intensity and form of the warning,” and (4) “the cost of improving the strength or mode of the warning.”
  • Derrick Daigrepont v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxonmobil Oil Corporation, Exxonmobil Pipeline Company, Turner Industries Group, LLC, Turner Industrial … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
  • Irene Marie Breaux, Individually, and on Behalf of Her Minor Children, Tabitha Caroline Breaux and Elwood James Breaux, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
  • Walker v. Manitowoc Co. 259 So. 3d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    Bloxom v. Bloxom , , 844 (La.1987).
  • Matthew M. Walker v. the Manitowoc Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    Several factors come into play in determining the adequacy of the warning, namely: (1) “the severity of the danger,” (2) the likelihood of successful communication of the warning to foreseeable consumers, (3) “the intensity and form of the warning,” and (4) “the cost of improving the strength or mode of the warning.”
  • Ron Warren, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Derek Hebert v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company La. 2017
    Teleflex argues the plaintiff played a role in creating the issue, by introducing the manual ostensibly to allow his expert to testify about the hydraulic steering system, without attributing a date, -51 (La.
  • Amos v. Taylor 244 So. 3d 749 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    The appellant asserts the usual deference on appeal should not be given because the trial court's judgment does not articulate the theory or the evidentiary facts upon which the conclusion is based, citing Bloxom v. Bloxom , (La.
  • Ron Warren, Ind. & O/B/O Estate of Derek Hebert v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    -51 (La.1987),4 the Louisiana Supreme Court had this to say about adequate warnings in an owner’s manual, “Accordingly, even if an adequate warning of the particular danger in this case had been given by a proper provision in the manual, such a warning would have been futile because Lonnie Bloxom did not read
  • Ron Warren, Ind & Obo Est. of D. Hebert v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    -51 (La.1987),4 the Louisiana Supreme Court had this to say about adequate warnings in an owner’s manual, “Accordingly, even if an adequate warning of the particular danger in this case had been given by a proper provision in the manual, such a warning would have been futile because Lonnie Bloxom did not read
  • Ron Warren, Ind & Obo Est. of D. Hebert v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    -51 (La.1987),4 the Louisiana Supreme Court had this to say about adequate warnings in an owner’s manual, “Accordingly, even if an adequate warning of the particular danger in this case had been given by a proper provision in the manual, such a warning would have been futile because Lonnie Bloxom did not read
  • Warren v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 196 So. 3d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    -51 (La.1987), 4 the Louisiana Supreme Court had this to say about adequate warnings in an owner’s manual, “Accordingly, even if an adequate warning of the particular danger in this case had been given by a proper provision in the manual, such a warning would have been futile because Lonnie *844 Bloxom did not rea
  • Warren v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 196 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    -51 (La.1987), 4 the Louisiana Supreme Court had this to say about adequate warnings in an owner’s manual, “Accordingly, even if an adequate warning of the particular danger in this case had been given by a proper provision in the manual, such a warning would have been futile because Lonnie Bloxom did not read the
  • Payne v. Gardner 56 So. 3d 229 La. 2011
    Notably, this definition is narrower in scope than its pre-LPLA counterpart, “normal use,” which included “all reasonably foreseeable uses and misuses of the product,” (definition of “normal use”), but, like “normal use,” what constitutes a reasonably anticipated use is ascertained from the point of view of the manufacturer at the time of manufacture.
  • Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Health Net asserts that the manifest error-elearly wrong standard for review of facts does not apply to the Louisiana and Oklahoma actions in this appeal and this Court should review the facts in those actions de novo because the trial court judge “Failed to Issue Legally Sufficient Findings and Reasons,”
  • Marshall Ex Rel. Minor Chil. v. Air Liquide-Big Three, Inc. 2 So. 3d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Appellants argue that an appellate court may take a less deferential approach to reviewing the factual findings where the trial court fails to “articulate the theory or evidentiary facts upon which its conclusion is based,” They cite Leal v. Dubois, 00-1285 (La.10/13/00), , in support of this position.
  • Jack v. Alberto-Culver USA, Inc. 949 So. 2d 1256 La. 2007
  • Salvant v. State 935 So. 2d 646 La. 2006
    [6] Plaintiffs, superceded by statute as stated in Kampen v. American Isuzu Motors, 119 F.3d 1193 (5th Cir.1997), argue that because the trial court did not give detailed reasons or explain its factual findings, the trial court's judgment is not entitled to the usual deference.
  • Bell v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 927 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
  • In Re Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser 927 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
  • Lewis v. Smith 920 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    In rejecting this argument, which set forth guidance for reviewing trial court decisions of "less than ideal clarity" as follows: Although we may accord deference to a decision of less than ideal clarity if the trial court's path may reasonably be discerned, such as when its findings, reasons and exercise of discretion are necess
  • Frank Alaimo v. Racetrack at Evangeline Downs, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    10/13/00), (), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that a trial court’s decision must be accorded deference “even if that decision is of less than ideal clarity, if the trial court’s path may be reasonably discerned, such as when its findings, reasons and exercise of discretion are necessarily and clearly implied b
  • Alaimo v. Racetrack at Evangeline Downs 893 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    In Leal v. Dubois, 00-1285, p. 4 (La.10/13/00), (), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that a trial court's decision must be accorded deference "even if that decision is of less than ideal clarity, if the trial court's path may be reasonably discerned, such as when its findings, reasons and exercise of discretion are necessarily and clearly implied by th
  • Shannon Douglas v. Grey Wolf Drilling La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Additionally, Grey Wolf argues that we should conduct a because the trial court impliedly denied them without comment in its oral reasons for judgment.
  • Douglas v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 858 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Additionally, Grey Wolf argues that we should conduct a because the trial court impliedly denied them without comment in its oral reasons for judgment.
  • Boutte v. Kelly 863 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
  • Seither v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. 853 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
  • Williams v. Super Trucks, Inc. 842 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • Palmer v. Schooner Petroleum Services 834 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Bergeron v. Clark 832 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Blanchard v. Midland Risk Ins. 817 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Winkler v. Wadleigh Offshore, Inc. 817 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • Gray v. Cannon 807 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Ballam v. Seibels Bruce Insurance Company, 97-1444, at 13 (La.App.
  • Green v. BDI PHARMACEUTICALS 803 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Derouen v. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, LLC. 808 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Lozano v. Touro Infirmary 778 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    4 Cir. 9/29/94), , writs denied 94-2623 and 94-2666 (La.12/16/94)
  • Leal v. Dubois 769 So. 2d 1182 La. 2000
    While the court of appeal acknowledged this standard of review, for the proposition that appellate courts may afford less deference to the district court's factual findings when the lower court fails to articulate the theory or evidentiary basis for its conclusions.
  • Clark v. Mitchell 760 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    -851 (La.1987) (automobile manufacturer not liable for inadequate warnings in owner's manual because car owner testified he never read the manual).
  • Leal v. Dubois 756 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    LeBlanc v. Acadian Ambulance Svc., Inc., 99-271 (La.
  • LeBlanc v. Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. 746 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    the court reviewed the trial court's findings in the case and determined that they were not due the deference ordinarily afforded decisions of triers of fact.
  • Swindle v. Body Blasters Gym, Inc. 728 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Hampton v. Marino 725 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the appropriate standard of review applicable to issues raised on appeal in an automobile owner’s products liability action brought against an automobile manufacturer for alleged defects in an automobile.
  • Ballam v. Seibels Bruce Ins. Co. 712 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    (inadequacy of warning in manual of no consequence because plaintiff did not read the manual).
  • Parks v. Pine Bluff Sand & Gravel Co. 712 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Brown v. Hudson 700 So. 2d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    In support of this assertion, and Dunne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 95-2047 (La.App.
  • Bell v. Uniroyal, Inc. 696 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • Zeller v. Olympic Marine Co. 692 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Clark v. JESUIT HIGH SCH. OF NEW ORLEANS 686 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Thomas v. Albertsons, Inc. 685 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    McCartney v. Columbia Heights Nursing Home, 25,710 (La.App.