Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Arizona’s Article 4A provides the “controlling body of law for those wire transfers within its scope”
• holding that jury could not have found in plaintiff’s favor on negligence claim when it awarded zero damages because actual damages are an element of the claim
• noting that the “absence of a legal remedy” element is controlled by 6 whether there is a contract governing the parties’ relationship
• explaining that Arizona law allows an unjust 9 enrichment theory “as an alternative theory of recover in conjunction with [a] breach of 10 contract claim,” but only where the validity of the contract is in dispute
• courts give statutory words them ordinary meaning unless specifically defined or context clearly indicates special meaning is intended
• courts give statutory words their ordinary meaning unless specifically defined or context clearly indicates special meaning is intended

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).