Ligocky v. Wilcox
New Mexico Court of Appeals
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
- Stang v. Hertz CorporationNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1972
- Williamson v. SmithNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1971
- Chevron Oil Co. v. Sutton Ex Rel. SuttonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1973
- Hines v. St. Joseph's HospitalNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1974
- Pendergrass v. LovelaceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Foust v. Estate of Walters, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2000
- Ligocky v. WilcoxNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980