Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff’s inadequate heating and cooling system did not fit “within the parameters of ‘ruin’ as defined in article 2322”
• holding that the plaintiff’s inadequate heating and cooling system did not fit “within the parameters of ‘ruin’ as defined in article 2322,” which same definition applied to Art.2762, the article at issue in that case
• Because no privity of contract existed between the subcontractor and the homeowner, the homeowner's action against the subcontractor was in tort rather than contract.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).