Christensen v. Abbott

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Smith

    Bankruptcy Case No. 04-24754 JAB, Adversary Proceeding No. 07-2113, [submitted electronically] (Bankr. D. Utah Jun. 27, 2008)

    15. Under Utah law, "Quantum meruit is an equitable tool that allows a plaintiff to receive restitution for the reasonable value of services provided to the defendant. See Emergency Physicians Integrated Care v. Salt Lake County, 167 P.3d 1080, 1083 (Utah 2007) (citing to J M Constr., Inc. v. Southam, 722 P.2d 779, 780 (Utah 1986) (per curiam); Christensen v. Abbott, 671 P.2d 121, 123 (Utah 1983); Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 P. 1004, 1007 (Utah 1908); Davies v. Olson, 746 P.2d 264, 269 (Utah Ct.App. 1987); Black's Law Dictionary 1255 (7th ed. 1999) ("A claim or right of action for the reasonable value of services rendered.").16. Under Utah law, there are two branches to the doctrine of quantum meruit; (1) a "contract implied in law (also referred to as unjust enrichment or quasi-contract), and (2) a "contract implied in fact." Id.17.

  2. Jones v. Thompson

    2015 UT 60 (Utah 2015)   Cited 41 times
    Explaining that unjust enrichment, also known as "[c]ontracts implied in law" or "quasi-contract[]," is one of quantum meruit's "two distinct branches" (the other being "contracts implied in fact")

    Emergency Physicians, 2007 UT 72, ¶ 10, 167 P.3d 1080 ; see also TruGreen Cos. v. Mower Bros., 2008 UT 81, ¶ 18, 199 P.3d 929 (noting that restitution and unjust enrichment are tools of equity).Christensen v. Abbott, 671 P.2d 121, 123 (Utah 1983).Moses v. Macferlan, 97 Eng. Rep. 676 (K.B. 1760).

  3. Epic v. Salt Lake County

    2007 UT 72 (Utah 2007)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that quantum meruit is an equitable tool that allows hospitals to recover for the services it rendered to patients as a result of being statutorily obligated to treat them under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd

    ¶ 10 Quantum meruit is an equitable tool that allows a plaintiff to receive restitution for the reasonable value of services provided to the defendant. See J M Constr., Inc. v. Southam, 722 P.2d 779, 780 (Utah 1986) (per curiam); Christensen v. Abbott, 671 P.2d 121, 123 (Utah 1983); Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 P. 1004, 1007 (1908); Davies v. Olson, 746 P.2d 264, 269 (Utah Ct.App. 1987); Black's Law Dictionary 1255 (7th ed. 1999) ("A claim or right of action for the reasonable value of services rendered."). Quantum meruit has two branches, contract implied in law (also referred to as unjust enrichment or quasi-contract) and contract implied in fact, Davies, 746 P.2d at 269.

  4. Knight v. Post

    748 P.2d 1097 (Utah Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 20 times
    Denying an equitable remedy in a circumstance where a plaintiff seeking unjust enrichment relief had failed to perfect its mechanic's lien

    " Although, in the present case, the parties have stipulated facts for the purposes of appeal, we see no distinction, and the standard of review remains the same. Christensen v. Abbott, 671 P.2d 121, 123 (Utah 1983). Thus, we review both factual and legal issues.