Legal Opinion

Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc.

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 13, 1981No. 15040-PRPublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GORDON, Justice:

Appellees Paul and Vera Flory, plaintiffs below, brought this action seeking damages allegedly suffered during the purchase of a new mobile home, using as theories of recovery breach of contract and breach of warranty, intentional infliction of emotional stress, and fraud. Appellants, defendants below, are the mobile home manufacturer, Silvercrest Industries, Inc. (Silvercrest), its bonding company, Pacific Employers Insurance Company (Pacific), and the retailer, Char-Nanza, Inc., dba Alamo Mobile Homes (Alamo).

During a jury trial, the court granted directed verdicts in favor…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Seely v. White Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Santor v. a & M KARAGHEUSIAN, INC.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
  3. Nobility Homes of Texas, Inc. v. ShiversTexas Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Martin v. Julius Dierck Equipment Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Hauter v. ZogartsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Szajna v. General Motors Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Wilks v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
  3. Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph OldsmobileArizona Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Chin v. Chrysler Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
  5. Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1984

51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API