9 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bloxom v. Bloxomgreen2 sentences2003Bloxom, supra . 1995Cf. Bloxom v. Bloxom, 512 So.2d 839, 844 (La.1987) (adequacy determination considers multiple factors including "the likelihood that the warning will catch the attention of those who will forseeably use the product"). | 1 | 5 |
Leday v. Clairol, Inc.green2 sentences1996See, Leday v. Clairol Inc., 571 So.2d 866, 869 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1990). 1991In Leday v. Clairol, Inc., supra, at page 869, this court stated: "The determination of whether a warning is adequate depends upon a balancing of considerations including, among other factors, the severity of the danger, the likelihood that the warning will catch the *111 attention of those who will foreseeably use the product and convey the nature of the danger to them, the intensity and the form of the warning, and the cost of improving the strength or the mode of the warning. | 1 | 2 |
Andries v. General Motors Corp., Delcogreen1 sentence1987App. 1st Cir.1985) writ den., 482 So.2d 620 (1986); the likelihood that the warning will catch the attention of those who will foreseeably use the product and convey the nature of the danger to them, Andries v. General Motors, 444 So.2d 1180, 1183 (La. 1983); Bituminous Casualty v. Black & Decker, 518 S.W.2d 868, 872-73 (Tex.Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Wolfe v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences1987App.Ct.1974); Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Inc., 308 F.2d 79 , 87 (4th Cir.1962); Wolfe v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Mass.App. 346 , 376 N.E.2d 143, 147 (1978); Seley v. G.D. 1987App.Ct.1974); Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Inc., 308 F.2d 79 , 87 (4th Cir.1962); Wolfe v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Mass.App. 346 , 376 N.E.2d 143, 147 (1978); Seley v. G.D. | 1 | 1 |
Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.green1 sentence1987App. 1st Cir.1985) writ den., 482 So.2d 620 (1986); the likelihood that the warning will catch the attention of those who will foreseeably use the product and convey the nature of the danger to them, Andries v. General Motors, 444 So.2d 1180, 1183 (La. 1983); Bituminous Casualty v. Black & Decker, 518 S.W.2d 868, 872-73 (Tex.Civ. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walker v. Maybelline Co.
green
2 sentences1991Bloxom v. Bloxom, 512 So.2d 839 (La.1987); also, Walker v. Maybelline, 477 So.2d 1136 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 481 So.2d 1333 (La. 1986)." No evidence was introduced to show the foreseeability of use by illiterates. 1990Bloxom v. Bloxom, 512 So.2d 839 (La.1987); also, Walker v. Maybelline, 477 So.2d 1136 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 481 So.2d 1333 (La.1986). | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Walker v. Maybelline Co.
green
2 sentences1991Bloxom v. Bloxom, 512 So.2d 839 (La.1987); also, Walker v. Maybelline, 477 So.2d 1136 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 481 So.2d 1333 (La. 1986)." No evidence was introduced to show the foreseeability of use by illiterates. 1990Bloxom v. Bloxom, 512 So.2d 839 (La.1987); also, Walker v. Maybelline, 477 So.2d 1136 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 481 So.2d 1333 (La.1986). | 2 | 1990–1991 |
State v. Pinion
green
1 sentence2008In support of his arguments, the Defendant cites State v. Pinion, 06-2346 (La.10/26/07), 968 So.2d 131 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Neil S. Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Incorporated
green
1 sentence1987App.Ct.1974); Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Inc., 308 F.2d 79 , 87 (4th Cir.1962); Wolfe v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Mass.App. 346 , 376 N.E.2d 143, 147 (1978); Seley v. G.D. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Marshall v. Beno Truck Equipment, Inc.
green
1 sentence1987App. 1st Cir.1985) writ den., 482 So.2d 620 (1986); the likelihood that the warning will catch the attention of those who will foreseeably use the product and convey the nature of the danger to them, Andries v. General Motors, 444 So.2d 1180, 1183 (La. 1983); Bituminous Casualty v. Black & Decker, 518 S.W.2d 868, 872-73 (Tex.Civ. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
United States v. Lee Cook and Jackie B. Kirk
green
1 sentence1983Id. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.