Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, for purposes of a statute concerning attorney fees, the relevant inquiry about the nature of a claim is whether the legal duty would exist “but for” the contract
• finding that implied-in-law contracts arising from professional relationships are insufficient under § 12-341.01(A)
• stating implied in law contracts are “obligations ‘created by the law without regard to expressions of assent by either words or acts.’” (citations omitted)
• explaining that “where the implied contract does no more than place the parties in a relationship in which the law then imposes certain duties recognized by public policy, the gravamen of the subsequent action for breach is in tort, not contract”
• stating the breach of an implied covenant in an implied contract— instead of an express contract—does not necessarily arise out of contract under A.R.S. § 13-341.01(A)
• analyzing first whether express or implied contract existed before determining whether § 12-341.01 applied

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).