Legal Opinion
Day v. Schenectady Discount Corp.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided April 4, 1980No. 2 CA-CIV 3466PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HOWARD, Judge.
The granting of appellee’s motion for summary judgment and the denial of one made by appellants is the subject of this appeal. Since the record discloses material issues of fact, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On April 28, 1970, the Days bought a mobile home from E-Z Livin’ Mobile Sales for the sum of $6,380. They paid $1,275 down and financed the balance under a written retail installment contract which gave a security interest in the mobile home to the dealer. This contract was subsequently assigned to Schenectady Discount Corporation (SDC).
In 1975 the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fratt v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Hall v. Owen County State BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1977
- Mallicoat v. Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1966
- Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. WarfordArizona Supreme Court · 1949
- Hudspeth Motors v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- Mobilisa, Inc. v. DoeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
- Bay Springs Forest Products, Inc. v. WadeMississippi Supreme Court · 1983
- Barajas v. BermudezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Gulf Homes, Inc. v. GonzalesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.