In Re Martin Estates

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that while a plaintiff may advance an equitable theory of recovery, the plaintiff may also seek legal relief in the form of money damages as redress
• holding that the trial court did not clearly err by finding that the plaintiff’s claim based on its “speculative belief that [the] defendant had benefitted unjustly from [the] plaintiff’s legal advice” was frivolous
• holding that presenting evidence for the first time on appeal constitutes an improper expansion of the record on appeal and that “this Court’s review is limited to the trial court record” at the time that the decision was rendered
• “For . . . unjust enrichment to apply, there must not be an express contract between the parties covering the same subject matter.”
• an appellee may argue alternate grounds to affirm a trial court’s ruling without filing a cross-appeal
• “For quantum meruit or unjust enrichment to apply, there must not be an express contract between the parties covering the same subject matter.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).