Legal Opinion

Certified Fire Protection, Inc. v. Precision Construction, Inc.

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided August 9, 2012No. 54603; No. 55514PublishedCited by 138 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

Pickering, J.:

To recover in quantum meruit, a party must establish legal liability on either an implied-in-fact contract or unjust enrichment basis. Because we agree with the district court that appellant/cross-respondent Certified Fire Protection, Inc. did not provide sufficient *375evidence to establish either an implied-in-fact contract or unjust enrichment, we affirm. Additionally, we affirm on cross-appeal the district court’s order denying attorney fees.

I

Respondent/cross-appellant Precision Construction, Inc., a general contractor pursuing a contract for a warehouse…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Lackner v. GlosserSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. May v. AndersonNevada Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Beattie v. ThomasNevada Supreme Court · 1983
  4. AmeriPro Search, Inc. v. Fleming Steel Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Martin v. CampanaroCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by138 opinions

  1. Alhassid v. Bank of America, N.A.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2014
  2. NAUTILUS INS. CO. VS. ACCESS MED., LLC (NRAP 5)Nevada Supreme Court · 2021
  3. Grisham v. GrishamNevada Supreme Court · 2012
  4. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLCDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2016
  5. In re Distribution of Attorney's Fees Between Stowman Law Firm, P.A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2015

133 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API