{
  "id": 1633369,
  "name": "Karl R. LEFFLER et ux v. Joe L. BANKS et ux",
  "name_abbreviation": "Leffler v. Banks",
  "decision_date": "1971-10-25",
  "docket_number": "5-5634",
  "first_page": "277",
  "last_page": "279",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 Ark. 277"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "472 S.W.2d 110"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "247 Ark. 1093",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1600834
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/247/1093-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2012,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.836,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.095634984681916e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3204920441307582
    },
    "sha256": "cbf0caaf6aa2847188d82b876f734ef490a3fbbb44072bafee258cf85e341e71",
    "simhash": "1:df4a3fac09a8978d",
    "word_count": 330
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:57.175988+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Fogleman, concurs in the result."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Karl R. LEFFLER et ux v. Joe L. BANKS et ux"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellants brought this action against appellees to recover damages for breach of implied warranty in the sale of a house. The court sustained appellees\u2019 demurrer and dismissed appellants\u2019 complaint when they declined to plead further. On appeal appellants contend for reversal that appellees\u2019 demurrer is a \u201cspeaking demurrer.\u201d Further, appellants assert their complaint stated a cause of action. Disregarding the \u201cspeaking\u201d portion of appellees\u2019 demurrer, we think the court was correct.\nIn their complaint the appellants alleged that the appellees were the \u201cowners and builders\u201d of a dwelling house which appellants bought on August 20, 1969; that appellees breached an implied warranty by failing to use reasonably suitable building materials and to employ satisfactory workmanship and building practices in the construction of the house, all of which defects were manifested about one year after the purchase date of August 1969.\nBoth parties cite to us Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093, 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970). There we adopted the modem rule by which an implied warranty may be recognized in the first sale of a new house by a seller who was also the builder. In recognizing this rule as being \u201ca departure from our earlier cases,\u201d and \u201cto avoid injustice,\u201d we said that this \u201cnew rule is made applicable only to the case at hand and to causes of action arising after this decision becomes final.\u201d Thus, we clearly intended that the applicability of. this rule would be prospective only as to sales occurring after our decision became final which was on March 9, 1970. Since the transaction in the case at bar predated Wawak, we hold that the court correctly sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint.-\nAffirmed.\nFogleman, concurs in the result.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles W. Atkinson and James R. Hale, for appellants.",
      "David J. Burleson, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Karl R. LEFFLER et ux v. Joe L. BANKS et ux\n5-5634\n472 S.W. 2d 110\nOpinion delivered October 25, 1971\n[Rehearing denied November 22, 1971.]\nCharles W. Atkinson and James R. Hale, for appellants.\nDavid J. Burleson, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0277-02",
  "first_page_order": 303,
  "last_page_order": 305
}