Legal Opinion

Ligocky v. Wilcox

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided November 6, 1980No. 4442PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WOOD, Chief Judge.

The herbicide, Defy, containing 2 — 4D, was applied to a milo field to kill weeds. Some adjacent cotton plants were damaged. The appeal involves: (1) liability of the supplier to the owner of the cotton on a theory of express warranty, and (2) liability of the person aerially applying the Defy to the owner of the cotton on a theory of strict liability.

Ligocky sued all the named defendants claiming his cotton had been damaged by the aerial application of Defy. His claims against Wilcox and Stewart were settled; the record does not show a disposition of Ligocky’s claims…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Stang v. Hertz CorporationNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Williamson v. SmithNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Chevron Oil Co. v. Sutton Ex Rel. SuttonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Hines v. St. Joseph's HospitalNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. Pendergrass v. LovelaceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1953

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Foust v. Estate of Walters, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2000
  2. Ligocky v. WilcoxNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API