Summary
rejecting party's petition for rehearing on grounds the party had confused contracts implied-in-fact with contracts implied-in-law
Summary of this case from Bayh v. SonnenburgOpinion
No. 2-882A264.
April 16, 1985. Transfer Denied July 3, 1985.
Appeal from the Marion County Superior Court, Michael T. Dugan, II, J.
Michael A. Bergin, Thomas R. Neal, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd and Weisell, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Kristie L. Hill, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Sue A. Beesley, Asst. Corp. Counsel, City-County Legal Division, Indianapolis, for appellees.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The Appellees' Petition for Rehearing of our decision in Health and Hosp. Corp. v. Marion County (1984), Ind. App., 470 N.E.2d 1348, charges us with having erroneously applied the doctrine of implied contract against a county. While our supreme court has held that the doctrine of implied contract cannot be invoked against a county, it has approved and utilized the doctrine of quasi-contract, or contract implied in law, against such an entity. Thus, we properly applied the doctrine of quasi-contract in our opinion. See Board of Comm'rs v. Greensburg Times (1939), 215 Ind. 471, 19 N.E.2d 459.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
SULLIVAN and SHIELDS, JJ., concur.