Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Wurst v. Pruyn, 202 So. 2d 268.

26 citing documents.

Kelly McHugh and Associates, Inc. v. RPDE Development, LLC, David W. Johnson, Phillip G. Mayeaux and Edward J. … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana Versus Kevin Barker La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
Harris v. Williams 679 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Hallar Enterprises, Inc. v. Hartman 583 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Troyer v. Webster Homes, Inc. 566 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
(1967); Town of Winnsboro v. Barnard & Burk, Inc., (La.App.
Linzay v. Sandy Ewing Aquatech Pools, Inc. 546 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
-272 (1967): While undertakers and architects under Article 2762 are held harmless for “defects in the soil,” it is latent defects in the soil which are meant.
Seiler v. Ostarly 525 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Hanna-Abington Alexandria, Inc. v. BUDD CONST. CO., INC. 487 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
"In Worst [Wurst] v. Pruyn, , our Supreme Court construed the meaning of `badness of workmanship' under Article 2762.
Hebert v. McDaniel 479 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Aizpurua v. Crane Pool Co., Inc. 449 So. 2d 471 La. 1984
Davidge v. H & H CONST. CO. 432 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Clifford v. Baker 431 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Maltzahn v. Roch 427 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Keith v. Charles Clotworthy Co. 421 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Trinidad Petroleum Corp. v. Pioneer Natural Gas Co. 416 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
(1967), the Supreme Court held that force majeure did not relieve the builder of a home where the foundation gave way due to shrinkage of the soil underneath *299 by large trees in close proximity, the reasoning of the court being that the builder should have foreseen the hazard.
Don Siebarth Pontiac v. Asphalt Road Bldg. 407 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
3rd Cir. 1967); , (1967).
Greneaux v. Castle I, Inc. 404 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
(1967), our supreme court stated: "While undertakers and architects under Article 2762 are held harmless for `defects in the soil', it is latent defects in the soil which are meant.
Haile v. Cooper 398 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Duhon v. Three Friends Homebuilders Corp. 396 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
[2] , (1967), which supports the proposition that builders of a home are contractors and not vendors.
Wetmore v. Blueridge, Inc. 391 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Manzanares v. AMERICAN INTERN. FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. 389 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Unverzagt v. Young Builders, Inc., (La.
Catalina Pools v. Sellers 322 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Upton v. McDowell 307 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1967), conclusively established that the type of transaction wherein a landowner negotiates with a builder for the erection of a residence does not result in a vendor-vendee relationship, /but is, rather, a construction contract.
Long Leaf Lumber, Inc. v. Summer Grove Develop., Inc. 270 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
Wurst v. *591 Pruyn, , (1967); (La.App.
Broussard v. Pierret 215 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
(1967); Chatelaine v. Globe Construction *138 Co., 229 La.
Unverzagt v. Young Builders, Inc. 207 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
The applicable law is set forth in the recent case of Wurst v. Pruyn, La., (1967).