Legal Opinion
Boydston v. Strole Development Co.
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided December 15, 1998No. CV-98-0012-PRPublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
MARTONE, Justice.
¶ 1 This is an action in contract brought by the owner against a corporate builder for defective construction of a house. After the owner prevailed in the trial court, non-lawyer corporate officers signed and filed a notice of appeal purportedly on behalf of the corporation. The only issue before us is the effect that notice of appeal has on the jurisdiction of the court of appeals.
I
¶ 2 When the Boydstons brought then-action against Strole Development Company in the superior court in September 1994, an answer was filed on behalf of the corporation by Jennings, Strouss…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In Re K. M. A., Inc., Bankrupt. K. M. A., Inc. v. General Motors Acceptance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Taliaferro v. TaliaferroArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- Hanen v. WillisArizona Supreme Court · 1967
- Marvin Johnson, PC v. MyersArizona Supreme Court · 1995
- Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane and Bird Advertising, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Downtown Disposal Services, Inc. v. The City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 2012
- CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San RamonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Hill v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1999
- Kelly v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2017
- Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn ParkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.