Legal Opinion
Cheyenne Construction, Inc. v. Hozz
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided June 26, 1986No. 16243PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
The Facts
Appellant Cheyenne Construction, Inc. (Cheyenne) and respondent Morris Hozz entered into a contract in which appellant agreed to perform paving work at respondent’s mobile home park. The contract specified that the subsoil on which the pavement was to be applied was to be compacted to a specified degree and depth; the gravel bases were to be compacted to another specified degree. Cheyenne utilized a different type of gravel than that specified in the contract. Cheyenne also failed to apply part of a prime coat specified in the contract and failed to apply a seal coat as…
3Cases cited8 opinions
- Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1979
- McKiernan v. Caldor, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Udevco, Inc. v. WagnerNevada Supreme Court · 1984
- Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. Brian McKay Attorney General of the State of NevadaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Arkansas National Bank v. Cleburne County BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by17 opinions
- Hallmark v. EldridgeNevada Supreme Court · 2008
- Phillips v. C.R. Bard, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 2013
- Prabhu v. LevineNevada Supreme Court · 1996
- Fink v. OshinsNevada Supreme Court · 2002
- Delaporte v. Robey Building Supply, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1991
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.