502 So. 2d 367 - Speigner v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is clear that Ms. Howard [agent] had no personal knowledge of the condition of the roof. Her only information concerning the roof came from the seller, Mrs. Minor, whose statements concerning the roof were simply relayed to Ms. Howard. Ms. Howard then relayed the information to Ms. Chambers, who, in turn, relayed it to the Speigners. No one questions the accuracy of Ms. Howard's own statements, and, therefore, her statements were not, as made by her, misrepresentations. Consequently, neither Ms. Howard, nor her employer, Lowder, can be held liable in fraud for merely conveying the statements of their principal to the agent of the Speigners, there being no evidence of bad faith on her part. Estes v. Crosby , 171 Wis. 73 , 175 N.W. 933 , 8 A.L.R. 1377 (1920). And *Page 1212 see Sealy v. McElroy , 288 Ala. 93 , 257 So.2d 340 (1972)."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fisher v. Comer Plantation, Inc. · Miller v. Sexton

2. “"For active concealment to be recoverable, the facts suppressed must not only be material, but either the materiality must be known to the seller, or the facts must so constitute an element of the value of the contract as to authorize the inference of knowledge of its materiality, and the concealment must be for the purpose of continuing a false impression or a delusion under which a purchaser has fallen, or suppressing inquiry and thereby effecting a sale with the intention to conceal or suppress. . . ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Compass Point Condo. v. First Red. Sav. · 630 So. 2d 378 - Cato v. Lowder Realty Co.

3. “"In this count [count four], plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Howard, as a 'realtor' or 'realtor-associate,' and Lowder 'owed to Plaintiffs an affirmative obligation and duty to exercise reasonably competent and diligent investigation or inspection of said premises' and that these defendants breached that duty 'in that . . . each of them, negligently, wantonly and/or recklessly failed and/or refused to take any steps whatsoever to discover any such adverse factors.' These allegations simply alleged that Howard and, therefore, Lowder, owed a duty of care to the Speigners to discover and report to them the existence of a faulty roof in this house (assuming it existed prior to their purchase). "But there was no confidential relationship between Ms. Howard and the Speigners, as we have herein found. In a succession of cases, this Court has applied the doctrine of caveat emptor in the purchase of used houses. See, e.g., Cashion v. Ahmadi , 345 So.2d 268 (Ala. 1977) ( caveat emptor applied in the sale of a used house where the alleged defect does not affect health or safety); Ray v. Montgomery , 399 So.2d 230 (Ala. 1980) ( caveat emptor applied in the resale of used residential real estate); Cooper Co. v. Bryant , [ 440 So.2d 1016 (Ala. 1983)]; Sanders v. White , [ 476 So.2d 84 (Ala. 1985)]. Here, the parties were dealing at arm's length, each side with its own agent versed in real estate transactions. Under the facts, this situation was one for the application of the doctrine of caveat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 529 So. 2d 955 - Blackmon v. First Real Estate Corp.