Stambovsky v. Ackley [...] is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent"). The dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine of "caveat emptor" should be strictly applied and would affirm the trial court's dismissal of all of the actions. Displeased by the majority's basis for its holding, the dissent said, "Finally, if the doctrine of caveat emptor is to be discarded, it should be for a reason more substantive than a poltergeist. The existence of a poltergeist is no more binding upon the defendants than it is upon this court." The case generated considerable publicity and area real estate
What Kate Does reviews"; however, this was down significantly from the previous episode's 89 and Bonnie Covel of About.com noted that " 'What Kate Does' brought us a bit of negativity. In general, fans just didn't like the episode". "What Kate Does" was largely considered to be a step down from the season premiere in pacing, revelations and writing; Mike Hale of "The New York Times" described the episode as "contemplative", "anticlimactic" and "subdued" and the flash sideways as "kind of boring and seemingly pointless." Chris Carabott of IGN, who gave the episode a score of 7.3 summed up that " 'What Kate