Legal Opinion

Pepitone v. Winn

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided October 20, 2006No. S-05-527PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCormack, J.

NATURE OF CASE

The issue in this case is whether attorney fees are mandatory under the provision of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-2,120(12) (Cum. Supp. 2004) which provides in part: “If a conveyance of real property is not made in compliance with this section, the purchaser shall have a cause of action against the seller and may recover the actual damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees.”

BACKGROUND.

Joseph Pepitone and Elizabeth Pepitone purchased a single family residence in Omaha, Nebraska. They subsequently discovered a preexisting sewer backup problem in the basement of the residence…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Bocquet v. HerringTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Bisson v. WardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
  3. Kolupar v. Wilde Pontiac Cadillac, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Spaghetti Ltd. Partnership v. WolfeNebraska Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Japp v. Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 2006

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Burns v. NielsenNebraska Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Conley v. BrazerNebraska Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Steward Software Co. v. KopchoColorado Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. Hutchison v. KulaNebraska Court of Appeals · 2019
  5. ARL CREDIT SERVICES, INC. v. PiperNebraska Court of Appeals · 2007

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API