7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2006 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Theis v. Heuergreen2 sentences1999We concluded that the complaint contained facts sufficient to state a claim “in that it relies on the concept of implied warranty of fitness of habitation. ...” Id. at 12 , 280 N.E.2d at 306 (emphasis added). 1999We concluded that the complaint contained facts sufficient to state a claim “in that it relies on the concept of implied warranty of fitness of habitation. ...” Id. at 12 , 280 N.E.2d at 306 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lake County Auditor v. Bank Calumet
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2006Id. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc.
green
2 sentences1972It does a disservice not only to the ordinary prudent purchaser but to the industry itself by lending encouragement to the unscrupulous, fly-by-night operator and purveyor of shoddy work.” In Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., (1965) 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A.2d 314 , the Supreme Court of New Jersey at 207 A.2d 326 said: *9 “. . . 1972It does a disservice not only to the ordinary prudent purchaser but to the industry itself by lending encouragement to the unscrupulous, fly-by-night operator and purveyor of shoddy work.” In Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., (1965) 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A.2d 314 , the Supreme Court of New Jersey at 207 A.2d 326 said: *9 “. . . | 2 | 1971–1972 |
Gomez Leon v. State
green
2 sentences1972For example, in Humber v. Morton, (1968) Tex., 426 S.W.2d 554 , the Supreme Court of Texas at 426 S.W.2d 562 stated: “The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modern home buying practices. 1971For example, in Humber v. Morton, Tex., 426 S. W. 2d 554 (1968), the Supreme Court of Texas at 426 S. W. 2d 562 stated: “The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modem home buying practices. | 2 | 1971–1972 |
Humber v. Morton
green
2 sentences1972For example, in Humber v. Morton, (1968) Tex., 426 S.W.2d 554 , the Supreme Court of Texas at 426 S.W.2d 562 stated: “The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modern home buying practices. 1971For example, in Humber v. Morton, Tex., 426 S. W. 2d 554 (1968), the Supreme Court of Texas at 426 S. W. 2d 562 stated: “The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modem home buying practices. | 2 | 1971–1972 |
Williamson v. Woten
neutral
2 sentences1932In Williamson et al. v. Woten (1892), 132 Ind. 202 , 31 N. E. 791 , an action was commenced to recover damages because of fraudulent representations made regarding certain lands traded by the defendant to the plaintiff for lands owned by the plaintiff. 1932In Williamson et al. v. Woten (1892), 132 Ind. 202 , 31 N. E. 791 , an action was commenced to recover damages because of fraudulent representations made regarding certain lands traded by the defendant to the plaintiff for lands owned by the plaintiff. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.