State v. Linthicum

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that prior version of the statute of repose violated equal protection guarantee because it applied to architects, but did not apply to materialmen and other suppliers of labor
• holding the statute of respose unconstitutionally discriminatory
• unreasonable and arbitrary distinction between architects and materialmen violates state and federal equal protection guarantees
• all who participate in the enterprise should be held to account for their share of the blame
• finding the statute to violate open courts provision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).