Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brooks v. Valley National Bank, 548 P.2d 1166.

28 citing documents.

Hernandez v. Old Town Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Hernandez v. Old Town Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Thus, if there is “a specific contract which governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application.” Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank, see also Trustmark Ins.
Self v. Higher Logic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Self v. Higher Logic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank
Nationstar v. Magnum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Nationstar v. Magnum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Foss v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Foss v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank, (“A person is not entitled to compensation on the grounds of unjust enrichment if he receives from the other that which 7 FOSS, et al. v. ABOR Decision of the Court it was agreed between them the other should g
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“[W]here there is a specific contract which governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application.”).
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
v. Bank One, Ariz., N.A., ¶ 34 , (quoting Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank, , ).
Stewart v. Sterling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stewart v. Sterling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
If “there is a specific contract which governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application.”
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
See Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank, , (stating that the existence of a contract specifically governing rights and obligations of each party precludes recovery for unjust enrichment).
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
The Arizona Supreme Court has stated that “where there is a specific contract which governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application.” Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank, , see also USLife Title *465 , Johnson v. Am.
Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NA 48 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NA 48 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 34 As our supreme court has explained in Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank, , if there is “a specific contract which governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application.” 113 Ariz. at 174 , 548 P.2d at 1171 .
Schweber Electronics v. National Semiconductor Corp. 850 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Schweber Electronics v. National Semiconductor Corp. 850 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank
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
Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank, , Johnson v. American Nat’l Ins.
Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Dooley's of Tucson, Inc. 716 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Dooley's of Tucson, Inc. 716 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Johnson v. American National Insurance 613 P.2d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Johnson v. American National Insurance 613 P.2d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980