Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Spinoso v. Rio Rancho Estates, Inc.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided March 12, 1981No. 4719Published
1Concurrence
SUTIN, Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur in affirmance.
Defendants’ interpretation of the contract that bears upon the meaning of “any substantial defect in workmanship or materials of the structural components of the dwelling” is illusory. A wall is a “structural component.” Treas.Reg. l:48-l(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, Kramertown Company, Inc. v. C. I. R., 488 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1974).
“Materials” is “[t]he substance or matter of which anything is made.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 1128 (Rev.Fourth Ed.1968). It is something that goes into and becomes a part of the finished structure. D.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Matter of 440 E. 102nd St. Corp. v. MurdockNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
- The Kramertown Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Galloway v. City of WinchesterCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1945
- D. H. Overmyer Warehouse Co. v. W. C. Caye & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- Hardy v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.