Prate Installations, Inc. v. Thomas

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, while the plaintiff might have been engaged in a construction-related activity, the defendant’s contribution did not involve the construction of an improvement to property and section 13-214(a) did not apply
• in the context of a lawsuit against a homeowner for failure to pay a roofing contractor, the four-year statute of limitations did not apply to the defendant homeowners

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).