holding that, “generally, quasi-contract claims such as quantum meruit and unjust enrichment cannot be asserted where an express contract ... exists”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, “generally, quasi-contract claims such as quantum meruit and unjust enrichment cannot be asserted where an express contract ... exists”
- holding that the state had not waived immunity under § 12-201(a
- holding that immunity was not waived where a claim did not satisfy the formal requirements of a written contract under S.G. § 12-201(a)
- stating that “[o]rdinarily, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply against the State....”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*97 CHASANOW, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment in this case for the reasons stated by Judge Hollander in her excellent opinion in Dept. of Public Safety v. ARA 107 Md.App. 445 , 668 A.2d 960 (1995).