Legal Opinion
Di Carlo v. Pacanins
District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Decided July 22, 1958No. 5462PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
J. SKELLY WRIGHT, District Judge.
Plaintiffs purchased a three-family dwelling in the city of New Orleans from the defendant, Pacanins, who was represented in the offering and sale of the property by the real estate firm of Latter & Blum, Inc., through its employee, Bernard Kansas. Alleging that the property is located in a zoned area of the city limited to two-family dwellings, plaintiffs in this redhibitory action ask rescission of the sale, return of the purchase price and damages.
Redhibition is a principle peculiar to the civil law. It is the converse of the common law doctrine of caveat…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Templeman Bros. Lumber Co. v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1911
- Overby v. BeachSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1951
- Overby v. BeachSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1951
- Oatis v. DelcuzeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1954
3Cited by3 opinions
- Musser v. CoppingLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1975
- Di Carlo v. Latter & Blum, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
- Vincent Di Carlo and Mrs. Rose M. Savarino, His Wife v. Latter & Blum, Inc., Bernard Kansas, and Francisco Pacanins, Latter & Blum, Inc. And Bernard Kansas v. Vincent Di Carlo and Mrs. Rose M. Savarino, His WifeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959