Buccaneer Homes of Alabama, Inc. v. Pelis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that although plaintiffs sued the manufacturer and retailer of a defective mobile home, they “incurred only a single financial injury—a defective mobile home”
• reversing judgment and rendering take-nothing judgment based on “one satisfaction rule” rather than dismissing case as moot
• reversing and rendering judgment for mobile home manufacturer based on plaintiff’s settlement with mobile home seller in suit alleging defects in mobile home
• applying one-satisfaction rule, reversing and rendering judgment in nonsettling defendant’s favor, and holding that because the one-satisfaction rule prevented the plaintiff’s recovery against the nonsettling defendant on the liability theory, attorney fee award also could not stand
• “If there is only one injury, even if it is based on several overlapping and varied theories of liability, a plaintiff will be permitted only one recovery.”
• consumer sued retailer and manufacturer, settling with retailer pretrial, and jury found that manufacturer breached warranty; because damages “were paid in full under the pre-trial settlement agreement with the retailer,” consumer could not recover attorney’s fees from manufacturer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).