5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hayden Business Center Condominiums Ass'n v. Pegasus Development Corp.green2 sentences2008There, we held that “the Richards exception [to the privity *502 requirement] applies only to homebuildervendors.” 209 Ariz. at 518, ¶ 12 , 105 P.3d at 159 (finding privity required for implied warranty claim in commercial construction). 2008There, we held that “the Richards exception [to the privity *502 requirement] applies only to homebuildervendors.” 209 Ariz. at 518, ¶ 12 , 105 P.3d at 159 (finding privity required for implied warranty claim in commercial construction). | 2 | 2 |
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co.green2 sentences2008We relied in part on Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co., 172 Ariz. 258, 270 , 836 P.2d 968, 980 (App.1991), in which this court stated that “Richards and its progeny expanded implied warranty liability for the homebuilder-vendor but failed to address non-owner subcontractors like [the defendant in that case].” Hayden, 209 Ariz. at 513, ¶ 12 , 105 P.3d at 159 . 2008We relied in part on Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co., 172 Ariz. 258, 270 , 836 P.2d 968, 980 (App.1991), in which this court stated that “Richards and its progeny expanded implied warranty liability for the homebuilder-vendor but failed to address non-owner subcontractors like [the defendant in that case].” Hayden, 209 Ariz. at 513, ¶ 12 , 105 P.3d at 159 . | 2 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Shawna Fordegreen1 sentence2023As he argued at trial, Richards contends the recordings lacked sufficient foundation as to the identification of his voice. ¶25 "To authenticate an item of evidence, the 'proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.'" State v. Forde, 233 Ariz. 543, 563, ¶ 74 (2014) (quoting Ariz. R. | 1 | 1 |
Woodward v. Chirco Const. Co., Inc.green2 sentences2005Co., 141 Ariz. 514, 516 , 687 P.2d 1269, 1271 (1984)(a home purchaser can bring a contract claim for the cost of repairing defects, but can bring a tort claim only for injuries to person or personal property). ¶ 12 Second, the Richards exception applies only to homebuilder-vendors. 2005Co., 141 Ariz. 514, 516 , 687 P.2d 1269, 1271 (1984)(a home purchaser can bring a contract claim for the cost of repairing defects, but can bring a tort claim only for injuries to person or personal property). ¶ 12 Second, the Richards exception applies only to homebuilder-vendors. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gipson v. Kasey
green
2 sentences2008C. ¶ 16 Lofts also argues that privity is not required for an implied warranty claim based on Donnelly Construction Co. v. *504 Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, 139 Ariz. 184 , 677 P.2d 1292 (1984), rejected on other grounds by Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 , 150 P.3d 228 (2007). 2008C. ¶ 16 Lofts also argues that privity is not required for an implied warranty claim based on Donnelly Construction Co. v. *504 Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, 139 Ariz. 184 , 677 P.2d 1292 (1984), rejected on other grounds by Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 , 150 P.3d 228 (2007). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Id. ¶ 12, 678 P.2d 427 . 4 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Ass'n v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Rep. 26, 27, ¶ 10 , 218 Ariz. 499 , 189 P.3d 426 (App. 2007) (holding that Richards exception to privity requirement only applies when defendant is both homebuilder and vendor to residential end-user). ¶ 9 In Hayden, this court considered whether the Richards exception extended to commercial property transactions. 209 Ariz. at 513-14, ¶ 14 , 105 P.3d at 159-60 . 2008Rep. 26, 27, ¶ 10 , 218 Ariz. 499 , 189 P.3d 426 (App. 2007) (holding that Richards exception to privity requirement only applies when defendant is both homebuilder and vendor to residential end-user). ¶ 9 In Hayden, this court considered whether the Richards exception extended to commercial property transactions. 209 Ariz. at 513-14, ¶ 14 , 105 P.3d at 159-60 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland
green
2 sentences2008C. ¶ 16 Lofts also argues that privity is not required for an implied warranty claim based on Donnelly Construction Co. v. *504 Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, 139 Ariz. 184 , 677 P.2d 1292 (1984), rejected on other grounds by Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 , 150 P.3d 228 (2007). 2008C. ¶ 16 Lofts also argues that privity is not required for an implied warranty claim based on Donnelly Construction Co. v. *504 Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, 139 Ariz. 184 , 677 P.2d 1292 (1984), rejected on other grounds by Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 , 150 P.3d 228 (2007). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.