89 Ark. App. 293 - Barringer v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 98 Ark. App. 167 - Schmidt v. Stearman (2007), 2011 Ark. App. 594 - Worley v. City of Jonesboro (2011)
27 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.
Relationships
Relies on South County, Inc. v. First Western Loan Co. · Dovers v. Stephenson Oil Co., Inc. · 87 Ark. App. 75 - Beatty v. Haggard · Lackey v. Bramblett · Meyer v. Riverdale Harbor Municipal Property Owners Improvement District No. 1
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“With regard to the fourth element of justifiable reliance, appellants argue that the jury’s answer of “No” was not supported by substantial evidence. They contend that their justifiable reliance could not have been negated by the real estate contract’s “as-is” clause or any other contractual disclaimers. In support of their argument, they cite our recent case of Beatty v. Haggard, 87 Ark.App. 75 , 184 S.W.3d 479 (2004), in which we held that neither an “as-is” clause nor a Buyer’s Disclaimer of Reliance similar to the one in this case barred a home buyer’s action for fraud. However, Beatty is distinguishable from the case at bar. In Beatty, the sellers of the home represented in a disclosure statement that there had been no structural modifications or other alterations or repairs made to the property and that there had been no settling from any cause. After purchasing the home, the buyers noticed evidence of settling and discovered that the sellers had poured additional concrete along one corner of the home, which the buyers characterized as an attempt to stop the settling. The additional concrete was covered with dirt and grass and was not visible at the time of the purchase to either the buyers or their inspector; nor were the buyers told about the additional concrete. The buyers sued the sellers to rescind the contract for fraud. | ifiThe trial court held that the buyers failed to prove fraud, but this court reversed and in doing so discussed, among other things, whether t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.