Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Woods, 512 So. 2d 839.
- Beauhall v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 526 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- Clement v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 528 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- Savoie v. Deere & Co. 528 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 522 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
- Pitre v. Ecko Housewares Co., Inc. 521 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- Brown v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 516 So. 2d 1154 La. 1988
- Gines v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 516 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
-
Borning v. Bush
517 So. 2d 183
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
decided September 9, 1987, our Supreme Court held that where the trial court’s reasons do not articulate the theory or evidentiary facts upon which its conclusion is based, and these can not be inferred from the reasons or record, the Court would be unable to give this finding the usual deference attributed
-
Felice v. Valleylab, Inc.
520 So. 2d 920
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
the Supreme Court stated the following: In order to recover from a manufacturer, the plaintiff must prove, among other essentials, that his damage resulted from a condition of the product that made it unreasonably dangerous to normal use.
-
Safeco Ins. Co. v. Baker
515 So. 2d 655
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
This issue was addressed by our Supreme Court in a recent decision, which stated: "An essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action for failure to adequately warn of a product's danger is that there be some reasonable connection between the omission of the manufacturer and the damage which the plaintiff has suffered.
-
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
514 So. 2d 439
La. 1987
Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., 259 La.