Nevada Supreme Court· 9/29/1992

Topaz Mutual Co. v. Marsh

Citations

839 P.2d 606
108 Nev. 845
1992 Nev. LEXIS 155

How courts have described this case

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

acknowledging that jury's consideration of indirect benefits may increase amount owed to plaintiff on its unjust enrichment claim
recognizing an actionable unjust enrichment claim where there was an indirect benefit conferred upon the defendant
recognizing an actionable unjust enrichment claim where there was an indirect benefit conferred upon the defendant
holding 16 unjust enrichment claim was viable if plaintiffs “at least indirectly benefited” the defendants
noting the general rule—that Nevada courts will not enforce contracts made voidable under Nevada statutes—but that \the facts of this case compel us to reach a different result\ and thus enforcing the contract
\Equitable estoppel functions to prevent the assertion of legal rights that in equity and good conscience should not be available due to a party's conduct.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Young

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.