Legal Opinion
Gropper v. STO CORP.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided July 9, 2001No. A01A0377, A01A0667PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Pope, Presiding Judge.
Gary R. and Vicki Rae Gropper filed claims arising from the use of synthetic stucco in the construction of their home. The defendants are STO Corporation, the manufacturer of the synthetic stucco product, or “Exterior Insulating Finishing System” (EIFS); Renaissance Building Corporation, the builder; and Evans Plastering Company, a subcontractor. The Groppers’ building contract specified the use of one-inch insulation and a product called “Dryvit.” But the Groppers assert that Renaissance substituted STO’s EIFS product without informing them. The Groppers claim that this…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Corporation of Mercer University v. National Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1988
- Daniel v. American Optical Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1983
- Versico, Inc. v. Engineered Fabrics Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1999
- Costrini v. Hansen Architects, P.C.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2000
- Fort Oglethorpe Associates II, Ltd. v. Hails Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Western Pacific Mutual Insurance v. DaviesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2004
- In re Tri-State Crematory LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2003
- Gropper v. STO CORP.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2005
- Perkins v. M&M Office Holdings, LLCCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2010
- Feinour v. Ricker Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.