Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Hershey v. Rich Rosen Construction Co.

Arizona Court of Appeals
817 P.2d 55 (1991)


Facts

Rich Rosen Construction Company (Rosen) (defendant) built a home and sold it in 1976. In 1986, James Hershey (plaintiff) was the third buyer to purchase the home. Before the purchase, Hershey performed his own inspection and did not find any unusual defects in the exterior stucco. About a year later, Hershey observed that the stucco was bulging, an issue that continued to worsen. Hershey hired building expert C. Randall Rushing to inspect the stucco. Rushing concluded that the stucco application was very poor and violated building codes. Thereafter, Hershey asked Rosen to repair the stucco, but Rosen refused. Hershey filed suit against Rosen, claiming breach of implied warranty. Rosen contended that Hershey’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and by Hershey’s failure to make a reasonable inspection of the home before buying. Hershey and Rosen each filed a motion for summary judgment. At the hearing, Rushing testified that if the stucco had been properly applied, the stucco would have been reasonably expected to last from 30 to 50 years. The trial court went on to conclude that (1) the statute of limitations did not bar Hershey’s claim, (2) Hershey had performed a reasonable inspection of the home, and (3) Rosen had breached the implied warranty. The trial court entered judgment in Hershey’s favor. Rosen appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Jacobson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.