Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corp., 84 So. 2d 822.

18 citing documents.

Blakely v. Powers 590 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
See, for example, Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corporation, , (1955); (La.App.
Pitfield v. Dupont Family Playhouses 571 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
See Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corp., , (1955); (La.App.
Pittman v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. 559 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Tardo v. Seither 452 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Company, , at 826 (1955).
Klein v. R.M. Homes, Inc. 424 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
323 , ; Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Company, , ; Broussard v. Breaux, La.App., ; Ranney v. Durkin, La.App., ; DeSoto v. Ellis, La.App., ; Dunn v. Pauratore, La.App., ; Busenlener v. Peck, La.App., ; Cook v. Highland Park Construction Co., La.App., ; Roberts v. Boulmay
Ranney v. Durkin 398 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
In Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Company, , (1955) the Supreme Court held: “When a house is sold with a heating system already installed, the heating system forms as much a part of the house as does the foundation or the roof and is covered by the vendor’s warranty.
Dunn v. Pauratore 387 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
See Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corporation, , (1956).
Bermes v. Facell 328 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
The Court cited Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corp., , (1955), reh.
Schamens v. Crow 326 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
In Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corp., , (1956) a heating system was held to be as much a part of a residence as the foundation or roof, covered by the vendor-constructor's warranty, whether express or implied.
LeBlanc v. Ellerbee Builders, Inc. 317 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
A subcontractor who was employed by the vendor to build the house was specifically excluded from the purchaser's redhibitory action, as there was no relationship of vendor-vendee between him and the purchaser, , (1955).
Guillory v. Sarpy 177 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
In Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corp., , (1955), a quanti minoris action was instituted due to a defective heating system in a home.
Sikes v. B & S Supply, Inc. 164 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corp., , .
Stack v. Irwin 144 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
760 , ; Harding v. Ed. Taussig Edsel Motors, Inc., La.App., ; Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corp., , ; McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., 220 La.
Geraci v. Di Martino 136 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
“Therefore, we have no alternative under the settled jurisprudence other than to ignore the plea as having been filed too late — we are powerless to give it any consideration.” In Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corporation, , 84 So.
Daly v. Abramson 117 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
Appropriate here is an expression of the Supreme Court in Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corporation, , , wherein it was stated: "When a house is sold with a heating system already installed, the heating system forms as much a part of the house as does the foundation or the roof and is covered by the vendor's warranty.
Cipriano v. Sherman 99 So. 2d 23 La. 1958
*63 The petition in the instant suit discloses 1 that this suit is a sequel to Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corp., , ; that in the former action Frank J. Cipriano sued Superior Realty & Construction Corporation, Clifford W. Sherman, Jr., Continental Casualty Company, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company to recover an in solido judgment against these defendants on the ground that a house which Cipriano had purch
Johnson v. Hunter 88 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
In the case of Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corporation, , , even though it was held that where the defendant did not construct the dwelling sold and alleged to have been damaged, the plaintiff was permitted to recover the amount alleged to have been necessary to make the repairs to the dwelling damaged by fire originating account of the defective installation
Breaux v. Laird 88 So. 2d 33 La. 1956
reurging the contention that plaintiff does not have a cause of action against his vendor for breach of warranty and against the vendor’s contractor and its surety in solido, defendant cites the case of Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Corporation, , .