Guy v. McDuffie
Citations
- 123 La. 641
- 49 So. 222
- 1909 La. LEXIS 759
Syllabus
<p>1. Appeal and Error (§ 397*) — Citation-Notice — Appeal in Open Court.</p> <p>Where an appeal is taken by motion in open court at the same term, no citation or notice of appeal is necessary, and there can be no want of proper parties to the appeal, since all parties to the suit who are not appellants are appellees..</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2101; Dec. Dig. § 397.*]</p> <p>2. Appeal and Error (§ 434*) — Failure or Appellant to Appear.</p> <p>Where the appellant makes no appearance in the Supreme Court, and makes no assignment or suggestion of error, the judgment below will be assumed to be correct.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2183; Dec. Dig. § 434.*]</p> <p>3. Ejectment (§ 127*) — Damages.</p> <p>Held, on joinder of plaintiffs in the appeal, that the judgment of nonsuit on their claim for damages was correct.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Ejectment, Dec. Dig. § 127.*]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- denying an insect repellant manufacturer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s substantively identical breach of warranty claim under the MMWA
- observing that while New York law allows plaintiffs to plead unjust enrichment in the alternative, if it “is duplicative of the other causes of action,” i.e. “it relies on the same conduct that forms the basis of [] other claims” “it should be dismissed”
- denying motion to dismiss MMWA claims where product’s “label includes application instructions that indicate that the product will ‘meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time’”
- finding pleadings specifically describing misleading statements on bug repellant’s label sufficient under Rule 9(b)
- “But Bates never stated that the state law claims at issue were not preempted because the EPA had waived efficacy review. Rather, the Court’s discussion of preemption was about FIFRA in general.”
- FIFRA did not preempt express warranty claim
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Land
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.