Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Robertson v. Steris Corp.green2 sentences2021Robertson v. Steris Corp., 234 N.C. 2020Robertson v. Steris Corp., 234 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Law Offices of Peter H. Priest, PLLC v. Cochgreen1 sentence2020Priest, PLLC v. Coch, 244 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Ron Medlin Construction v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2014Ron Medlin Constr. v. Harris, 364 N.C. 577, 580 , 704 S.E.2d 486, 489 (2010). {39} LabCorp contends that “procuring cause” is an essential element of a quantum meruit claim where the essential claim is that the broker is entitled to a commission. 2014Ron Medlin Constr. v. Harris, 364 N.C. 577, 580 , 704 S.E.2d 486, 489 (2010). {39} LabCorp contends that “procuring cause” is an essential element of a quantum meruit claim where the essential claim is that the broker is entitled to a commission. | 1 | 1 |
Horack v. Southern Real Estate Co. of Charlotte, Inc.green2 sentences2014The Court of Appeals has held that a broker’s quantum meruit claim seeking recovery of a commission could not proceed to the jury where the evidence showed that the broker “was [not] the procuring cause of the sale.” Horack v. Southern Real Estate Co., 150 N.C. 2014App. 305, 312 , 563 S.E.2d 47, 52 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Vetco Concrete Company v. TROY LUMBER COMPANYgreen2 sentences2011B: Measure of Damages “It is a well[-]established principle that an express contract precludes an implied contract with reference to the same matter.” Concrete Co. v. Lumber Co., 256 N.C. 709, 713 , 124 S.E.2d 905, 908 (1962) (citations omitted). 2011B: Measure of Damages “It is a well[-]established principle that an express contract precludes an implied contract with reference to the same matter.” Concrete Co. v. Lumber Co., 256 N.C. 709, 713 , 124 S.E.2d 905, 908 (1962) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Paramount Brokers, Inc. v. Digital River, Inc.green1 sentence2009Paramount, 126 F. Supp. 2d at 949 (internal citations omitted). {51} Plaintiff has asserted two (2) different measures of damages under the quantum meruit claim. | 1 | 1 |
Eastway Wrecker Service, Inc. v. City of Charlottegreen1 sentence2007App. 639, 643 , 599 S.E.2d 410, 412 (2004) (“dismissal of the quantum meruit claim was . . . appropriate because such a claim when brought against an arm of the State is barred by sovereign immunity), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 410 , 612 S.E.2d 318 , aff’d per curiam, 360 N.C. 167 , 622 S.E.2d 495 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Shore v. Browngreen2 sentences2001Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the contract claim but it did err in denying Defendant’s motion on the quantum meruit claim. 4 II “If the granting of summary judgment can be sustained on any grounds, it should be affirmed on appeal.” Shore v. Brown, 324 N.C. 427, 428 , 378 S.E.2d 778, 779 (1989). 2001Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the contract claim but it did err in denying Defendant’s motion on the quantum meruit claim. 4 II “If the granting of summary judgment can be sustained on any grounds, it should be affirmed on appeal.” Shore v. Brown, 324 N.C. 427, 428 , 378 S.E.2d 778, 779 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Guess v. Parrott
green
1 sentence2020App. 325, 335 , 585 S.E.2d 464 , 470–71 (2003) (providing that various factors should be considered when determining the reasonable value of services rendered by an attorney for a quantum meruit claim, including “the terms of the percentage agreement, the nature of the litigation, difficulty of the case, time spent, the amount of money involved, results achieved[,] and amounts customarily charged for similar services in the same locality.”). 47. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
James River Equipment, Inc. v. Tharpe's Excavating, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014“To recover in quantum meruit, a plaintiff must first show that (1) services were rendered to the defendant; (2) the services were knowingly and voluntarily accepted; and (3) the services were not given gratuitously.” James River Equip., Inc. v. Tharpe’s Excavating, Inc., 179 N.C. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Environmental Landscape Design Specialist v. Shields
green
1 sentence2008“To recover in quantum meruit, [a] plaintiff must show: (1) services were rendered to [the] defendants (2) the services were knowingly and voluntarily accepted; and (3) the services were not given gratuitously.” Environmental Landscape Design v. Shields, 75 N.C. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
EASTWAY WRECKER SERV. v. City of Charlotte
neutral
2 sentences2007App. 639, 643 , 599 S.E.2d 410, 412 (2004) (“dismissal of the quantum meruit claim was . . . appropriate because such a claim when brought against an arm of the State is barred by sovereign immunity), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 410 , 612 S.E.2d 318 , aff’d per curiam, 360 N.C. 167 , 622 S.E.2d 495 (2005). 2007App. 639, 643 , 599 S.E.2d 410, 412 (2004) (“dismissal of the quantum meruit claim was . . . appropriate because such a claim when brought against an arm of the State is barred by sovereign immunity), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 410 , 612 S.E.2d 318 , aff’d per curiam, 360 N.C. 167 , 622 S.E.2d 495 (2005). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Baxley v. Jackson
neutral
1 sentence2007App. 639, 643 , 599 S.E.2d 410, 412 (2004) (“dismissal of the quantum meruit claim was . . . appropriate because such a claim when brought against an arm of the State is barred by sovereign immunity), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 410 , 612 S.E.2d 318 , aff’d per curiam, 360 N.C. 167 , 622 S.E.2d 495 (2005). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Dove v. Speller
neutral
1 sentence2007App. 639, 643 , 599 S.E.2d 410, 412 (2004) (“dismissal of the quantum meruit claim was . . . appropriate because such a claim when brought against an arm of the State is barred by sovereign immunity), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 410 , 612 S.E.2d 318 , aff’d per curiam, 360 N.C. 167 , 622 S.E.2d 495 (2005). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sanders v. . Ragan
green
2 sentences1994Sanders v. Ragan, 172 N.C. 612 , 90 S.E. 777 (1916). 1994Sanders v. Ragan, 172 N.C. 612 , 90 S.E. 777 (1916). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hicks v. Hicks
green
2 sentences1984A quantum meruit claim, which is implied by law rather than agreed to by the parties, is not within the Statute of Frauds, Hicks v. Hicks, 13 N.C. 1984App. 347 , 185 S.E. 2d 430 (1971); nor, for that matter, are trespass or unlawful timber cutting claims. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.