quantum meruit claim in Utah

2009There must be some misleading act, request for services, or the like, to support an action.") (citation omitted); Baker v. Holland Furnace Co., 95 Utah 396 , 81 P.2d 1114, 1118 (1938) (determining a quantum meruit instruction to the jury was proper when the quantum meruit claim arose based on work performed, "independent[] of the written [employment] contract," and pursuant to the division manager's approval, even when the employment contract specifically indicated that "the company would not be held responsible for any special agreement between the [plaintiff] and the division manager, unless

2009There must be some misleading act, request for services, or the like, to support an action.") (citation omitted); Baker v. Holland Furnace Co., 95 Utah 396 , 81 P.2d 1114, 1118 (1938) (determining a quantum meruit instruction to the jury was proper when the quantum meruit claim arose based on work performed, "independent[] of the written [employment] contract," and pursuant to the division manager's approval, even when the employment contract specifically indicated that "the company would not be held responsible for any special agreement between the [plaintiff] and the division manager, unless

2004"As a general rule, one must first exhaust his legal remedies before he may recover on the basis of the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit." Knight v. Post, 748 P.2d 1097, 1099 (Utah Ct.App.1988); see also Interiors Contracting, Inc. v. Navalco, 648 P.2d 1382, 1388 (Utah 1982); Commercial Fixtures & Furnishings, Inc. v. Adams, 564 P.2d 773, 774 (Utah 1977).

2004"As a general rule, one must first exhaust his legal remedies before he may recover on the basis of the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit." Knight v. Post, 748 P.2d 1097, 1099 (Utah Ct.App.1988); see also Interiors Contracting, Inc. v. Navalco, 648 P.2d 1382, 1388 (Utah 1982); Commercial Fixtures & Furnishings, Inc. v. Adams, 564 P.2d 773, 774 (Utah 1977).

2004"As a general rule, one must first exhaust his legal remedies before he may recover on the basis of the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit." Knight v. Post, 748 P.2d 1097, 1099 (Utah Ct.App.1988); see also Interiors Contracting, Inc. v. Navalco, 648 P.2d 1382, 1388 (Utah 1982); Commercial Fixtures & Furnishings, Inc. v. Adams, 564 P.2d 773, 774 (Utah 1977).

2004"As a general rule, one must first exhaust his legal remedies before he may recover on the basis of the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit." Knight v. Post, 748 P.2d 1097, 1099 (Utah Ct.App.1988); see also Interiors Contracting, Inc. v. Navalco, 648 P.2d 1382, 1388 (Utah 1982); Commercial Fixtures & Furnishings, Inc. v. Adams, 564 P.2d 773, 774 (Utah 1977).

2008Co., 666 P.2d 302, 303, 305, 308 (Utah 1983) (upholding an award of prejudgment interest for the tort of negligent misrepresentation, an outgrowth of the tort of common law fraud, because “here, the loss is fixed as of a particular time, and the amount of the loss can be calculated with mathematical accuracy.”). 4 ¶ 14 Davies v. Olson, 746 P.2d 264 (Utah Ct.App.1987), provides a helpful example of how a prejudgment interest award can be based upon a quantum meruit claim.

2008Co., 666 P.2d 302, 303, 305, 308 (Utah 1983) (upholding an award of prejudgment interest for the tort of negligent misrepresentation, an outgrowth of the tort of common law fraud, because "here, the loss is fixed as of a particular time, and the amount of the loss can be calculated with mathematical accuracy."). [4] ¶14 Davies v. Olson, 746 P.2d 264 (Utah Ct. App. 1987), provides a helpful example of how a prejudgment interest award can be based upon a quantum meruit claim.

2008Although the court stated that “prejudgment interest must be sought directly as damages in unjust enrichment cases, if at all,” id at 212, implying that such damages were not unequivocally precluded, the issue addressed was whether “the damages upon which prejudgment interest is sought can be calculated with mathematical certainty.” Id. at 211 . ¶ 18 Similarly, in Bailey-Alien Co., Inc. v. Kurzet, 876 P.2d 421 (Utah Ct.App.1994), this court advised the trial court that “on remand, no prejudgment interest should be awarded” on a quantum meruit claim.

2008Although the court stated that "prejudgment interest must be sought directly as damages in unjust enrichment cases, if at all," id. at 212 , implying that such damages were not unequivocally precluded, the issue addressed was whether "the damages upon which prejudgment interest is sought can be calculated with mathematical certainty." Id. at 211 . ¶18 Similarly, in Bailey-Allen Co., Inc. v. Kurzet, 876 P.2d 421 (Utah Ct. App. 1994), this court advised the trial court that "on remand, no prejudgment interest should be awarded" on a quantum meruit claim.

2015Isbrandisen Lines, Inc., 305 F.Supp. 250, 251 (S.D.N.Y.1969) (considering "(1) time; (2) standing of the lawyer at the bar; (3) amount involved; (4) benefit to the client[;] and (5) skill demanded" when valuing an attorney's quantum meruit claim on a contingency fee case). 72 .

2014Auth. v. CedarCrestone, Inc., 562 F.Supp.2d 653, 656 (E.D.Pa.2008).

2009There must be some misleading act, request for services, or the like, to support an action.") (citation omitted); Baker v. Holland Furnace Co., 95 Utah 396 , 81 P.2d 1114, 1118 (1938) (determining a quantum meruit instruction to the jury was proper when the quantum meruit claim arose based on work performed, "independent[] of the written [employment] contract," and pursuant to the division manager's approval, even when the employment contract specifically indicated that "the company would not be held responsible for any special agreement between the [plaintiff] and the division manager, unless

2009There must be some misleading act, request for services, or the like, to support an action.") (citation omitted); Baker v. Holland Furnace Co., 95 Utah 396 , 81 P.2d 1114, 1118 (1938) (determining a quantum meruit instruction to the jury was proper when the quantum meruit claim arose based on work performed, "independent[] of the written [employment] contract," and pursuant to the division manager's approval, even when the employment contract specifically indicated that "the company would not be held responsible for any special agreement between the [plaintiff] and the division manager, unless

2009See Emergency Physicians Integrated Care v. Salt Lake County, 2007 UT 72, ¶ 10 , 167 P.3d 1080 .

2009See Emergency Physicians Integrated Care v. Salt Lake County, 2007 UT 72, ¶ 10 , 167 P.3d 1080 .

2008Co., 666 P.2d 302, 303, 305, 308 (Utah 1983) (upholding an award of prejudgment interest for the tort of negligent misrepresentation, an outgrowth of the tort of common law fraud, because “here, the loss is fixed as of a particular time, and the amount of the loss can be calculated with mathematical accuracy.”). 4 ¶ 14 Davies v. Olson, 746 P.2d 264 (Utah Ct.App.1987), provides a helpful example of how a prejudgment interest award can be based upon a quantum meruit claim.

2008Co., 666 P.2d 302, 303, 305, 308 (Utah 1983) (upholding an award of prejudgment interest for the tort of negligent misrepresentation, an outgrowth of the tort of common law fraud, because "here, the loss is fixed as of a particular time, and the amount of the loss can be calculated with mathematical accuracy."). [4] ¶14 Davies v. Olson, 746 P.2d 264 (Utah Ct. App. 1987), provides a helpful example of how a prejudgment interest award can be based upon a quantum meruit claim.

2007Id. at 873.

1990Trollope v. Koerner, 106 Ariz. 10 , 470 P.2d 91, 100 (1970) (where an express contract is pleaded, it is unnecessary to plead a claim for recovery in quantum meruit). 9 .

1990Trollope v. Koerner, 106 Ariz. 10 , 470 P.2d 91, 100 (1970) (where an express contract is pleaded, it is unnecessary to plead a claim for recovery in quantum meruit). 9 .