Heaton v. Imus
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
This case presents the question whether lost profits are recoverable by the prevailing party as part of a quantum meruit recovery in an action based on principles of quasi contract. The Court of Appeals held that lost profits are not recoverable in such an action. Heaton v. Imus, 21 Wn. App. 914, 587 P.2d 602 (1978). We reverse.
Respondent Stuart D. Heaton, doing business as Heaton Construction, performed rehabilitation work on realty in Bellingham, Washington, owned by petitioners Ken and Barbara Imus, doing business as Jacaranda Land and Development Corporation, a foreign corporation. When…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bignold v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1965
- Milone & Tucci, Inc. v. Bona Fide Builders, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1956
- Bill v. GattavaraWashington Supreme Court · 1949
- Dravo Corp. v. L. W. Moses Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1971
- Losli v. FosterWashington Supreme Court · 1950
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Young v. YoungWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Young v. YoungWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Tundra Tours, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1986
- Family Medical Building, Inc. v. Department of Social & Health ServicesWashington Supreme Court · 1985
- Lynch v. Deaconess Medical CenterWashington Supreme Court · 1989
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.