Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pyeatte v. Pyeatte, 661 P.2d 196.

44 citing documents.

Carretero v. Carretero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Carretero v. Carretero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶14 “[T]o be granted restitution, [ex-husband] must demonstrate that [ex-wife] received a benefit, that by receipt of that benefit [ex-wife] was unjustly enriched at [ex-husband’s] expense, and that the circumstances were such that in good conscience [ex-wife] should make compensation.”
Amar Law v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Amar Law v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Retention of the benefit must be unjust.”
Escobedo v. Banderas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Escobedo v. Banderas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
2014); (observing implied-in-fact contracts are true contracts proved by circumstantial evidence rather than by express written or oral terms); Valley Med.
Span v. Maricopa 437 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Span v. Maricopa 437 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
6 SPAN v. MARICOPA Opinion of the Court inequitable or unjust for defendant to retain the benefit without compensating plaintiff."); (plaintiff seeking restitution "must demonstrate that [defendant] received a benefit, that by receipt of that benefit [defendant] was unjustly enriched at [plaintiff's] expense").
Ridley v. Ridley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ridley v. Ridley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(holding that a spouse who works to allow the other spouse to obtain a degree may be entitled to restitution if the parties later divorce).
Carter Inc. v. Jade II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Carter Inc. v. Jade II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The underlying consideration is whether one party received a benefit at the other’s expense under “circumstances [] such that in good conscience [the first party] should make compensation.” Murdock-Bryant Constr., ( ).
Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC 283 P.3d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Murdock-Bryant Constr., , ( , ).
Freeman v. Sorchych 245 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Freeman v. Sorchych 245 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See Murdock-Bryant Constr., , ( , ).
Victor v. Victor 866 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Victor v. Victor 866 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Rogus v. Lords 804 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogus v. Lords 804 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-51 , -01 (App.1982) (essential terms and requirements of agreement not sufficiently definite so that obligations of the parties could be determined).
A M Leasing, Ltd. v. Baker 786 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
A M Leasing, Ltd. v. Baker 786 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Murdock-Bryant Construction, , (
Flooring Systems, Inc. v. Radisson Group, Inc. 772 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1989
Explained Flooring Systems, Inc. v. Radisson Group, Inc. 772 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1989
What is important is that it be shown that it was not intended or expected that the services be rendered or the benefit conferred gratuitously, and that the benefit was not “conferred officiously.” 146 Ariz. at 54 , 703 P.2d at 1203
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
State v. Arizona Pension Planning 739 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1987
State v. Arizona Pension Planning 739 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1987
ourt finds that ‘the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity’ to make compensation for benefits received.” Murdock-Bryant, 146 Ariz. at 53 , 703 P.2d at 1202 (quoting D. DOBBS, REMEDIES § 4.2, at 435 (1973)); accord City of Sierra Vista v. Cochise Enterprises, Inc., , -53 , -03 (App.1982).
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
The court analogized the goodwill of a partnership to a personal achievement such as an educational degree which cannot be exchanged on the open market, , Holbrook v. Holbrook, 103 Wis.2d 327 , 309 N.W.2d 343 (App.1981).
USLife Title Co. of Arizona v. Gutkin 732 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
USLife Title Co. of Arizona v. Gutkin 732 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Arizona Pension Planning 739 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Arizona Pension Planning 739 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
[the party benefitted] should make compensation.” , City of Sierra Vista v. Cochise Enterprises, Inc.
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Wisner v. Wisner, supra.
Triangle Construction v. City of Phoenix 720 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Triangle Construction v. City of Phoenix 720 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Correa v. Pecos Valley Dev.
Murdock-Bryant Construction, Inc. v. Pearson 703 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1985
Murdock-Bryant Construction, Inc. v. Pearson 703 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1985
Lancer Realty & Investments, Inc. v. Anderson 703 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Lancer Realty & Investments, Inc. v. Anderson 703 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
found the lack of a time frame in an oral agreement, whereby each spouse agreed to provide in turn the sole support for the marriage while the other spouse was obtaining further education, to be fatal.
Edwards v. Hauff 682 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Edwards v. Hauff 682 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
See Savoca Masonry Company, Inc. v. Homes & Son Construction Company, Inc., , , , Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co., 11 Ariz.App.