Legal Opinion
Foust v. McKnight
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided May 10, 1996No. 95 CA 2008PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
|2LeBLANC, Judge.
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding defendants, homeowners who built an addition to their home which contained a redhibitory defect, were not manufacturers as a matter of law.
FACTS
On April 28, 1992, plaintiffs, Todd and Elizabeth Foust and Don and Donna Kil-bourne, purchased a house from defendants, Peter and Lynn McKnight, for $72,250.00. The house was purchased as a residence for Todd and Elizabeth Foust.1 Shortly after the sale, plaintiffs discovered extensive water damage and rotten wood in the sub-floors in certain areas of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Khaled v. WindhamLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1995
- Rasmussen v. Cashio Concrete Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1986
- Besse v. BlossmanLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1988
- Bell v. BattlesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1988
- Drewes v. GiangrossoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Smith v. FrandsenUtah Supreme Court · 2004
- Gaston v. Bobby Johnson Equip. Co., Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2000
- 425 Notre Dame, LLC v. Kolbe & Kolbe Mill Work Co.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2015
- Petroleum Rental Tools, Inc. v. Hal Oil & Gas Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1997
- Cameron v. BruceLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2012
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.