About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Case Citations (March 2016 through June 2016) [i] (2016)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0063 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION Generally C.A.7, 2015. Cit. generally in sup., cit. generally in cases quot. in ftn. In a case brought by purchaser of residential mortgage-backed securities against seller, this court reversed in part the district court's decision that granted summary judgment for defendant, holding that plaintiff's claim for contract rescission was not barred by the statute of limitations. In making its decision, the court relied on Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 54 to determine that plaintiff's claim was not an action upon a contract for purposes of the statute of limitations, but acknowledged that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had previously looked to the original Restatement of Restitution for guidance. CMFG Life Ins. Co. v. RBS Securities, Inc., 799 F.3d 729, 736. PART I. THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (QUASI CONTRACTS AND KINDRED EQUITABLE RELIEF) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES § 1. Unjust Enrichment C.A.9, 2015. Cit. in case quot. in sup. (general cite); coms. cit. in case quot. in sup. (general cite). Internet advertiser brought a putative class action against search engine that used an auction-based program through which advertisers could bid for placements on third-party websites, seeking restitution based on allegations that defendant misled them as to the types of websites on which their advertisements would appear. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. This court reversed and remanded, holding that plaintiff s proposed method for calculating restitution- which measured what the advertisers would have paid at the outset had they known the quality of the websites-was not arbitrary and it satisfied the predominance requirement. Citing Restatement of Restitution § 1, the court pointed out that restitution was meant to restore a plaintiff to the position it would have been in absent the fraud, and to deny a defendant any benefits it derived from its wrongful act. Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d 979, 988. S.D.Fla.2015. Cit. in sup.; com. (a) cit. in sup. Bank customers brought a multidistrict action based on claims of unjust enrichment, inter alia, against bank, alleging that defendant wrongfully extracted overdraft fees and failed to disclose and actively misrepresented its overdraft policies. This court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, holding that plaintiffs met their burden of showing that there were common issues that predominated within the proposed subclasses. The court determined that creating subclasses for plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment claims was appropriate because the jurisdictions in A L I For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most