Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Standard Motor Co. v. St. Amant, 134 So. 279.
- Chance v. Stevens of Leesville, Inc. 491 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
- Moses v. Ed's Manufactured Housing, Inc. 470 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
- Dearing v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc. 423 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
- Anselmo v. Chrysler Corporation 414 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
- Lokey v. Dixie Buick, Inc. 400 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
- Dixon Enterprises, Inc. v. Restaurant Products, Inc. 389 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
- John Deere Indus. Equip. Co. v. Willett Timber Co. 380 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
-
Guillory v. Morein Motor Company, Inc.
322 So. 2d 375
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
298 , (1st Cir. 1931), (reversed on other grounds at 138 So.
- Ticheli v. Silmon 304 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
- Rey v. Cuccia 298 So. 2d 840 La. 1974
- Maddox v. Katz 8 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
-
Roby Motors Co. v. Harrison
139 So. 686
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
App.) , 280: “Whether or- not he gave any such guaranty, the contract carried with it the implied warranty that it was in running condition and ‘fit for the purpose intended.’ * * ⅜ “The term ‘fit for the purpose intended’ we understand to mean the ordinary general use of an automobile.” While no one should expect the same
- Standard Motor Car Co. v. St. Amant 138 So. 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931