Gable v. Silver

David GABLE, Petitioner, v. David SILVER et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 5, 1972.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1972-07-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“flatly declare[d] that ... implied warranties of fitness and merchantability extend to the purchase of new condominiums [and homes] ... from builders.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 612 So. 2d 669 - Haskell Co. v. Lane Co., Ltd.

“[W]e hold that the District Court of Appeal has correctly decided the cause and its decision is adopted as the ruling of this Court.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 612 So. 2d 669 - Haskell Co. v. Lane Co., Ltd.

Relies on 258 So. 2d 11 - Gable v. Silver

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1972-07-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably 115 Wash. 2d 506 - ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co. (1990), 620 So. 2d 1244 - Casa Clara Condo. Ass'n v. Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc. (1993)

1 district · 33 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Earl Faircloth and Robert M. Sturrup, of Faircloth, Sturrup & Della-Donna, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

¶2Merle Litman, of Litman & Muchnick, Hollywood, for respondents.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 258 So.2d 11. The District Court has certified its decision as one passing on a question of great public interest, to-wit:

"Do implied warranties of fitness and merchantability extend to the purchasers of new condominium homes from builder-sellers."

¶5 *419 After argument and upon consideration of the record and briefs, we hold that the District Court of Appeal has correctly decided the cause and its decision is adopted as the ruling of this Court.

¶6Accordingly, certiorari is discharged.

¶7It is so ordered.

¶8ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.