- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Great Western Sav. v. George W. Easley
778 P.2d 569 (Alaska 1989)2 Citing cases
Tilt-Up Concrete, Inc. v. Star City/Federal, Inc.
261 Neb. 64 (Neb. 2001) Cited 35 timesHolding that because contractor received "all of the benefits to which this court determined it was entitled" under Act, contractor could not state claim for damages under § 52-157
See, generally, 53 Am. Jur. 2d Mechanics' Liens §§ 338 and 339 (1996). See, also, e.g., Great Western Sav. v. George W. Easley, 778 P.2d 569 (Alaska 1989); Pine Gravel, Inc. v. Cianchette d/b/a Site Prep., 128 N.H. 460, 514 A.2d 1282 (1986); Sentry Engineering v. Mariner's Cay Dev. Corp., 287 S.C. 346, 338 S.E.2d 631 (1985); Meier v. Novak, 338 N.W.2d 631 (N.D. 1983); Lane-Tahoe, Inc. v. Kindred Constr. Co., 91 Nev. 385, 536 P.2d 491 (1975), disapproved on other grounds, County of Clark v. Blanchard Constr. Co., 98 Nev. 488, 653 P.2d 1217 (1982); McHugh Elec. Co. vs. Hessler Rlty. Dev. Co., 50 Del. 296, 129 A.2d 654 (1957); W. Va. Engin. Corp. v. Kurish, 137 W. Va. 856, 74 S.E.2d 596 (1953); Herro v. Heating Plumbing F. Corp., 206 Wis. 256, 239 N.W. 413 (1931); Southern Sur. Co. v. York Tire Service, 209 Iowa 104, 227 N.W. 606 (1929); Alberti v. Moore et al., 20 Okla. 78, 93 P. 543 (1908); Groesbeck v. Linden, 321 N.J. Super. 349, 729 A.2d 47 (1999); Old Kent v Whitaker Constr Co, 222 Mich. App. 436, 566 N.W.2d 1 (1997), appeal denied 457 Mich. 858, 581 N.W.2d 729 (1998); Brook-Hattan Utilities v. 893 Const., 180 A.D.2d 660, 579 N.Y.
Nicdao v. Chase Home Fin.
839 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (D. Alaska 2012) Cited 17 timesDiscussing the requirements for showing unjust enrichment under Alaska law, and stating that “[g]enerally, a[p]laintiff may not rely on a theory of implied contract where a valid, express contract governs” (second alteration in original)
The existence of a contract, in turn, requires “an offer including all essential terms, an unequivocal acceptance of those terms by the offeree, consideration, and an intent to be bound by the contract....” See Great W. Sav. Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569, 577–78 (Alaska 1989) (finding that a complaint was sufficient where it alleged that the parties had a contractual obligation, that the other party breached the contract, and that the plaintiff suffered damages); Winn v. Mannhalter, 708 P.2d 444, 450 (Alaska 1985) (“Causation is a required element in an action for breach of contract”); cf., e.g., Ledcor Indus. (USA) Inc. v. Virginia Surety Co., No. C09–1807RSM, 2011 WL 6140957, at *7 (W.D.Wash. Dec. 9, 2011) (stating that under Washington law, “The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a legal duty under the contract; (2) breach of that duty; and (3) damages proximately caused by the breach.” (citation omitted)); Gray v. Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC, No. CV–10–0698–PHX–NVW, 2010 WL 2691563, at *5 (D.Ariz. July 6, 2010) (“To establish a claim for breach of contract in Arizona, a plaintiff must prove the existence of an enforceable contract, a breach of that contract, and damages caused by the breach.”