Hydro Conduit Corp. v. Kemble

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that unjust enrichment was an action “based on contract” for the purposes of New Mexico’s governmental immunity statute
• finding that unjust enrichment will not lie against a property owner who has already paid for the benefit supplied by the subcontractor
• recognizing the general rule that the subcontractor’s claim of unjust enrichment cannot be sustained against the owner when the owner has paid the general contractor for the work performed and material supplied
• distinguishing between contract implied in law based on obligations created by law for reasons of justice, and contract implied in fact based on parties' mutual assent as manifested by their conduct
• claim against state for restitution, based on unjust enrichment, barred by sovereign immunity as reinstated by NMSA 1978, § 37-1-23
• “[T]he common law now recognizes a constitutionally valid statutory imposition of sovereign immunity, and such immunity must be honored by the courts where the legislature has so mandated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).