Leasepartners Corp. v. Robert L. Brooks Trust

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming dismissal of unjust enrichment claims as to 19 parties to written contracts, but reversing as to parties who had not entered into written 20 contracts
• setting forth elements of unjust enrichment under Nevada law, and noting that “unjust enrichment is not available when there is an express, written contract, because no agreement can be implied when there is an express agreement”
• “The doctrine of unjust 20 enrichment or recovery in quasi contract applies to situations where there is no legal 21 contract…” (emphasis added)
• unjust enrichment only occurs when “a benefit [is] 21 conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff
• “An action on a theory of unjust enrichment is not available when there is an express, written contract[.]”
• action based on theory of unjust enrichment not available where there is an express, written contract, because no agreement can be implied when the agreement is express

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).