Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Woodward v. Chirco Const. Co., Inc., 687 P.2d 1269.

62 citing documents.

Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court 784 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court 784 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
From that, he reasons, the six-year limitation applies to actions based on a breach of a term of the contract imposed by law
Buchanan v. Scottsdale Environmental Construction & Development Co. 787 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Buchanan v. Scottsdale Environmental Construction & Development Co. 787 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
To us there is a world of difference between the statement “you can build a house if you take the following steps (we express no opinion about settlement)” and the statement “because we cannot tell whether there will be settlement, we cannot say that you can safely build a house.”
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative 778 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1989
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Cooperative 778 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1989
Colberg v. Rellinger 770 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Colberg v. Rellinger 770 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Woodward v. Chirco Const. Co., Inc., [ ] (1984) and Nastri v. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc., [ ] (1984) teach that an action in negligence is not available in this context when the damages claimed are limited to remedying structural defects.
Matusik v. Dorn 756 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Matusik v. Dorn 756 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW Woodward v. Chirco Construction Co., Inc., , approved as supplemented, , , sets forth the general principles of law applicable to this case.
Nastri v. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. 690 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Nastri v. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. 690 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Indeed, in Woodward v. Chirco Construction Co., Inc., , our supreme court spoke of “the policy *443 considerations behind recognition of the warranty.” Our conclusion that an attempted disclaimer of the implied warranty of habitability is void as against public policy as to an innocent subsequent purchaser is supported by case law.