Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Freeman v. Sorchych, 245 P.3d 927.

33 citing documents.

Amar Law v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Amar Law v. Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 27 (App. 2011) (citing cases); see also Trustmark Ins.
Eisen v. Coonfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Eisen v. Coonfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
A plaintiff claiming unjust enrichment must establish five elements: “(1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.”
Coyote v. Icon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Coyote v. Icon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
De Leon v. Pizarro, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
De Leon v. Pizarro, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Todeschi v. Arreola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Todeschi v. Arreola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
elements: (1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of 3 TODESCHI, et al. v. ARREOLA Decision of the Court justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.” ¶ 27 (App. 2011); accord Loiselle v. Cosas Mgmt.
Bamford v. Toll Brothers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Bamford v. Toll Brothers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Nationstar v. Magnum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Nationstar v. Magnum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
"An unjust enrichment claim requires proof of five elements: '(1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.'" Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, ¶ 10 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 27 (App. 2011)).
Foss v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Foss v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dabrowski v. Bartlett 442 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dabrowski v. Bartlett 442 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
5 CALCAGNO v. AINBINDER Decision of the Court (App. 2012) ( ¶ 27 (App. 2011)).
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 27 , (citing Murdock-Bryant Constr., , ).
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johnson v. Swing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
To recover quantum meruit damages, a plaintiff must prove “the defendant received a benefit, that by receipt of that benefit the defendant was unjustly enriched at the plaintiff’s expense, and that the circumstances were such that in good conscience the defendant should provide compensation.” ¶ 27
Palisades v. Roberto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Palisades v. Roberto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Mill Alley Partners v. Wallace 341 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. Partnership v. Robson 294 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. Partnership v. Robson 294 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 22 To recover under an unjust enrichment theory, a party must prove: “(1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.” ¶ 27
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
¶ 10 An unjust enrichment claim requires proof of five elements: “(1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of a remedy provided by law.” ¶ 27
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-53, ¶ 31 , -38 (App.2011) (citations omitted).