Look closely and you’ll spot that this is a “modified” opinion. It does mention that the Court of Appeals requested some supplemental briefing. What it doesn’t mention is that the court requested that briefing after it published an opinion in the case. We blogged that here. This opinion supersedes one that is over a year old. Would it have been too much trouble to mention that?

The result of the case doesn’t change. The court’s discussion of the fraud allegation against the sellers is expanded somewhat. The precise legal effect of the changes isn’t clear but its purport is apparently to help convince the majority that not revealing something you have no obligation to reveal can indeed be fraud if you’re asked a direct question the truthful answer to which would reveal it.

(link to opinion)