Iowa Waste Systems, Inc. v. Buchanan County

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining the distinction in a case where the plaintiff pleaded both “quantum meruit,” which the court described as a “subclass of implied-in-fact contracts,” and “unjust enrichment”
• finding “a claim for unjust enrichment is rooted solely in equitable principles” and is typically heard in equity
• noting courts normally review quantum meruit recovery based on implied-in-fact contract for corrections of errors at law
• discussing alternative claims of “implied in fact contract” and “unjust enrichment”
• a contract “implied in fact” is “inferred in whole or in part from expressions other than words on the part of the promisor”
• “As a claim for unjust enrichment is rooted solely in equitable principles, our review is de novo.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).