DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

67 citing documents.

  • Kolwe v. Owens 357 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    *1334 , (1963), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the term "simple inspection" "relieves the buyer of examining the inner or hidden parts of the object of the sale for the purpose of ascertaining the existence of latent defects".
  • Lier v. Hight 357 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    The vendees’ , (1963), and the Court held the inspection required by C.C.
  • Bermes v. Facell 328 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    On this score, , (1963), reh.
  • Sokol v. Bob McKinnon Chevrolet, Inc. 307 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    NOTES [1] , ; Tucker v. Central Motors, 220 La.
  • Pickerel v. Long 286 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
  • Lorio v. Kaizer 277 So. 2d 633 La. 1973
    The Court of Appeal ended its opinion by suggesting the adoption of a new rule in cases such as this: “one who purchases a home in which there is some evidence of termite activity does so at his own risk.” 4 , 152 So.
  • Conley v. Cupit 274 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    In Fraser, this Court followed the rationale of Bonhagen v. Hooper, La.App., , , .
  • Lorio v. Kaizer 259 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    However, where the termite damage is partially observable by a simple inspection of the premises, , (1963), that the purchaser who nevertheless buys without further investigation waives his right to sue in quanti minoris.
  • Eanes v. McKnight 251 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    In so contending, , , and Bonhagen v. Hooper, La.App., 195 So.
  • Hendricks v. Colonial Buick, Inc. 204 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Kelly v. Galilee Baptist Church, La.App., .
  • Bonhagen v. Hooper 195 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    art. 2521 , (1963), the the damage was discoverable, and hence the defect cannot be the basis for an action in quanti minoris.
  • Thompson v. Klein 188 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    In this court appellant contends: As shown by some of the allegations in the petition of the plaintiff husband against Safeway and, in any event, because of the certificate issued by Safeway and the facts here involved, , , it became plaintiffs’ duty to make further investigation and in the absence thereof there can be no recovery.
  • Charter Co. v. Mercante 186 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Williams v. Daste 181 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Tucker v. Central Motors, 220 La.
  • Guillory v. Sarpy 177 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    (1963), the Supreme Court discussed Article 2521: “Article 2521 of the Civil Code excludes, from the vices for which redhi-bition may be demanded, apparent defects ‘that is, such as the buyer might have discovered by simple inspection * * * ’.
  • Brown v. Dauzat 157 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
  • Bowab v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 152 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963