Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fitzmorris v. Kelly, 152 So. 2d 36.

67 citing documents.

Dage v. Obed 917 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Stuck v. Long 909 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Brandao v. McMahon 857 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
(1963), (discussing, with approval, (La.App.
McGough v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. 779 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
McMorris v. Marcotte Builders, LLC 756 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
In order to determine whether a defect is apparent upon simple inspection, the courts have used a reasonableness standard, -36 , (1963) as whether a reasonably prudent buyer acting under similar circumstances would have discovered the presence of a defect.
Crow v. Laurie 729 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
(1963); Amend, 664 So.2d at 1188 .
Long v. Bruns 727 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Perrin v. Kuehne 704 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Grimaldi v. JP & Sons Contractors 686 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Mitchell v. Popiwchak 677 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Amend v. McCabe 664 So. 2d 1183 La. 1995
Bunch v. Hirn 665 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1 They argue that since the Bunches were aware of an obvious stain in the dining room, they cannot recover for the presence of similar stains elsewhere in the house, , (1963) as authority: When the defect complained of is partially apparent, the buyer, who, nevertheless, purchases the thing without further investigation must be held to have waived his right to sue in quanti minoris.
LeBlanc v. Faul 659 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1st Cir.1987) which held at 745 [ , (1963) ]: The proper test to be applied in cases of this kind is whether a reasonably prudent buyer acting under similar circumstances would have discovered the differential settlement problem prior to the act of sale.
Sydnes v. Harwell 651 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Fruge v. Hancock 647 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
See generally, , (1963); Sievert, supra ; and Fricano v. Bennick, 93-1040 (La.App.
Bourgeois v. Ford 638 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In Sievert at 745 the court, in considering a settlement defect, , (1963), a termite damage case, and held: The proper test to be applied in cases of this kind is whether a reasonably prudent buyer acting under similar circumstances would have discovered the differential settlement problem prior to the act of sale.
Brouillette v. Ducote 634 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
(1963), where the Supreme Court stated that the test for this issue is "whether a reasonably prudent buyer acting under similar circumstances, would have discovered the presence of termite damages in the premises."
Poche v. Bayliner Marine Corp. 632 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Landaiche v. Supreme Chevrolet, Inc. 602 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
In order to determine whether a defect is apparent upon simple inspection, the courts have used a reasonableness standard, , as whether a reasonably prudent buyer acting under similar circumstances would have discovered the presence of the defect.
Thomson v. Cobb 570 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Payne v. Quinn 565 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Caple v. Green 545 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Allen v. Burnett 530 So. 2d 1294 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Dodd v. Tucker 528 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Hostetler v. W. Gray & Co., Inc. 523 So. 2d 1359 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Sievert v. Henderson 506 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Bonstaff v. Jefferson United Enterprises, Inc. 501 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
(1963), and four court of appeal cases wherein purchasers were penalized for making quick inspections and overlooking obvious defects.
Guillory v. Ardoin 491 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
the type of inspection required by L.S.A.-C.C.
Jones v. Information System & Supply Co. 477 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Ingraffia v. Coleman 467 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
our Supreme Court, , (1963), stated: "In Pursell v. Kelly, 244 La.
Barker v. Tangi Exterminating Co. 448 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Buck v. Adams 446 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Abshire v. WDL Investments, Inc. 428 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
(1963), our Supreme Court discussed the purchaser's duty of inspection as follows: "Article 2521 of the Civil Code excludes, from the vices for which redhibition may be demanded, apparent defects `that is, such as the buyer might have discovered by simple inspection * * *'.
Carrier v. Dazet 429 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
In this regard, the trial judge found that: “Plaintiff had not examined the attic previously because there was no light, and he was told there was not much insulation which was his concern.” , (1963), wherein the Supreme Court addressed the issue of what defects were discoverable by simple inspection and declared that: “The proper test to be applied ...
Distinguished D'ANGELO v. Poche 434 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Bain v. Anderson 427 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Klein v. R.M. Homes, Inc. 424 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Pursell v. Kelly, La.App., , Affirmed, , ; Cipriano v. Superior Realty & Construction Company, 228 La.
Voorhies v. Livingston 420 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
We quote from Prat v. Heymann : "In order to determine whether a defect is apparent by a simple inspection the courts have used a at p. 41.
Bork v. Sells 420 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
at 41 , (1963), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the term “inspection” as used in this codal article is not a mere casual observation but “an examination of the article by the vendee with a view of ascertaining its soundness”.
Estopinal v. Bourshie 420 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Dansky v. Thompson 415 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
(1963); and their progeny.
Broussard v. Breaux 412 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
(1963), found that the term "simple inspection" as used in LSA-C.C.
Fowler v. Calamari 411 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
1 , (1963), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the term “inspection” as used in this Codal article is not a mere casual observation but “an examination of the article by the vendee with a view of ascertaining its soundness.” As pointed out in Pursell , the proper test is whether a reasonably prudent buye
Prat v. Heymann 410 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
In order to determine whether a defect is apparent by a simple inspection the courts have used a (La.
Garrett v. Gayle 405 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Olmstead v. Perrio 401 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(1963), the court stated that the term “simple inspection” relieves the buyer of examining the inner or hidden parts of the objects of the sale for the purpose of ascertaining “latent defects.” The defective condition of the substructure of this house was discernable only by crawling under the house and
Bustamante v. Manale 397 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Pursell v. Kelly, 1963, , -40, n. 4 , foresaw this case from defendant's view: In our recent cases (see Lemonier v. Coco, 237 La.
Lusher v. Kilcrease 384 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Art. 2521 provides “Apparent defects, that is, such as the buyer might have discovered by simple inspection, are not among the number of redhibitory vices.” , that redhibition does not apply where the defect was apparent and could have been discovered by simple inspection.
Carney v. American Fire & Indem. Co. 371 So. 2d 815 La. 1979
Bernofsky v. Schwartz 370 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
(1963), Justice McCaleb, speaking for the Supreme Court, discussed what simple inspection entails, viz: "Article 2521 of the Civil Code excludes, from the vices for which redhibition may be demanded, apparent defects `that is, such as the buyer might have discovered by simple inspection * * *'.