Cited by

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶¶ 38–39 (App. 2002) (explaining that a party must object when the verdict is rendered if the party believes the verdict is inconsistent).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., N.A., ¶ 34 (App. 2002).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., N.A., ¶ 31 (App. 2002).

v. Bank One, Ariz., ¶ 31 (App. 2002) (“Unjust enrichment occurs when one party has and retains money or benefits that in justice and equity belong to another.”) (citing cases).3 ¶14 ALG argues defendants “directly benefited from, and ALG was impoverished by, the uncompensated transfer of the clients because ALG collects

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶ 32 n.5 (App. 2002) (“[A] party’s right to seek unjust enrichment is not controlled by whether the party has an ‘adequate’ remedy at law—in the sense of providing all the relief the party desires—but by whether there is a contract which governs the relationship between the parties.”); Loiselle v. Cosas Mgmt.

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶ 31 (App. 2002).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶ 31 (App. 2002).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶ 39 (App. 2002); Farmers Ins.

v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, –44, ¶¶ 38–42 (App. 2002) (failure to object to inconsistent verdict until after the jury is excused waives the argument); –36 (App. 1994).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶ 39 (App. 2002); see also Farmers Ins.

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., N.A., ¶¶ 39–40 (App. 2002).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶ 31 (App. 2002).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶ 31 (App. 2002).

v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶ 38 (App. 2002)).

Co. v. Bank One, Arizona, NA, ¶ 38-39 (App. 2002) (a party must object when the verdict is rendered if it believes the jury was confused or the verdict was contrary to law, otherwise the party waives objection to error; furthermore, if a party believes the verdict is inconsistent, defective, or nonresponsive, it must move under Ariz. R. Civ.

v. Bank One, Ariz., N.A., ¶ 34 , (quoting Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank, , ).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA

v. Bank One, Ariz., N.A., ¶ 25 (App. 2002)).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA

11 ARELLANO v. PRIMERICA, et al. Opinion of the Court Ariz., NA, ¶ 39

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶ 39, (“If Trustmark believed the jury verdict was inconsistent, defective, or nonresponsive to its negligence claim, Trustmark should have moved, before the jury was excused, for resubmission of the case to the jury pursuant to Rule 49(c).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz. NA, ¶ 34, Southwest contends that Burns cannot pursue a counterclaim for unjust enrichment because the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not available where there is a specific contract governing the parties.

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., N.A., ¶ 31

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., N.A, ¶ 14 , (holding that Arizona’s Article 4A provides the “controlling body of law for those wire transfers within its scope”).

Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, ¶¶ 38-39, (holding that plaintiff who failed to object under Rule 49(c) had waived argument that new trial was required due to inconsistency of jury’s findings for plaintiff without awarding damages in negligence action).