Walker v. Maybelline Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Here, the liability of Maybelline is predicated not upon redhibition but tort through LSA-C.C. art. 2315. We note that the present case is not one in which the product was improperly designed or manufactured making it unfit for its intended use as was the shotgun shown to be defective in Philippe, supra . Rather, the mascara involved here was a satisfactory product with the only flaw being its lack of an adequate warning of a dangerous propensity known to the manufacturer. The concurring opinion in Walker v. Maybelline, 477 So.2d at 1141 , took exception with the way we denied attorneys' fees: [B]y failing to distinguish between defects and dangerous propensities, the latter which sould be treated solely on negligence concepts, we have dug ourselves into a hole on attorney fees.... I agree that attorney fees should not be awarded and that it would be a completely unjust and almost incomprehensible straining of the law to do so. However, a defect is a defect is a defect. The fact of the matter is there is no defect, and we shouldn't call it one. We should be dealing strictly in negligence concepts where attorney fees are not permitted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 540 So. 2d 1172 - Ard v. Kraft, Inc.