Elias Munoz Gutierrez v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing “that an express contract and an implied contract cannot coexist with respect to the same subject matter”
• noting plaintiff could not bring a promissory estoppel claim to enforce promise that is inconsistent with term of a fully integrated contract
• finding “the parties entered into an express written agreement related to the farmland improvements” and the contractor cannot “use theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit to recover for improvements to which he was plainly not entitled under the terms of the contract”
• “The existence of an express contract on these matters prevents [the plaintiff] from circumventing their agreement by seeking to use [the theory] of unjust enrichment . . . to recover.”
• “The existence of an express contract on these matters prevents [the plaintiff] from circumventing their agreement by seeking to use [the theory] of unjust enrichment . . . to recover . . . .”
• “The existence of an express contract on these matters prevents [a party] from circumventing their agreement by seeking to use theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit to recover for improvements to which he was plainly not entitled under the terms of the contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).