DAVID WAYNE BRIDGES, SR., PETITIONER,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Miracle Ctr. Dev. Corp. v. M.A.D. Constr., Inc., 662 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
  …M.A.D. One court has observed that quasi-contractual remedy may be available where two parties tacitly enter an agreement of some sort after an express contract between them exists. See Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Acme Elec. Contractors, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (citing 3 A.L. Cor-bin, Corbin on Contracts § 564 (I960)). The court also noted that “[i]f the law allows quasi-contract[ual] recovery where an express contract already exists, it certainly wiU do so where there is no contr…
• Fred McGILVRAY, Inc. v. The Delphian Grp., Inc., 424 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
  …herefore follows that quantum meruit recovery was not barred in this case, as urged, on an express contract theory. Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853, 857-58 (1928). Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Acme Electrical Contractors, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). There was also sufficient evidence adduced below that the plaintiff Delphian conferred a benefit upon the defendant McGilvray which was compensable on a quantum me-ruit theory. Although the evidence is in dispute, there was subs…
• Miller v. Perez, 524 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
  …. The record supports the trial court’s finding of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore we affirm the final judgment in favor of Perez for $40,000 on the authority of Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Acme Electrical Contractors, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) and Rudick v. Rudick, 408 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We also find support for our decision in Jobear, Inc. v. Dewind Machinery Co., 402 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In Jobear we held that a plaintiff’s acceptance of a ch…