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

Case Citations [1] (April 2017 through August 2017)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0065 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION PART I. THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (QUASI CONTRACTS AND KINDRED EQUITABLE RELIEF) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES § 1. Unjust Enrichment D.Colo.2016. Cit. in case quot. in sup. Employee of limited-liability company brought a claim sounding in unjust enrichment against company and one of its members, alleging that he contributed client resources and client-consulting projects to company in reliance on defendants' promise to put in place an equity model and revenue-distribution system and to reimburse him for his business-related expenses. This court denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that a question of fact remained as to whether defendants' conduct constituted bad faith for purposes of plaintiff s unjust- enrichment claim. The court noted that, under Restatement of Restitution § 1, unjust enrichment was a form of contract, or quasi-contract, implied by law that did not rely upon a promise between parties; rather, it was a form a restitution designed to restore a plaintiff to his or her prior status. Walshe v. Zabors, 178 F.Supp.3d 1071, 1087. M.D.Tenn.2016. Cit. in sup. Homeowners filed a class action against distributor of toilet connectors, alleging that defendant distributed defective connectors that caused leaks and water damage to their homes. This court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment, holding that the complaint did not include any allegations that plaintiffs purchased the connectors directly from defendant, such that plaintiffs could be said to have conferred a benefit on defendant, as required to state a claim for restitution under Restatement of Restitution § 1 and Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1. The court noted that the connectors could have been purchased by third parties on plaintiffs' behalf or that the connectors could have already been installed when plaintiffs purchased their homes. Ajose v. Interline Brands, Inc., 187 F.Supp.3d 899, 913. PART II. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS AND ANALOGOUS EQUITABLE REMEDIES CHAPTER 13. FOLLOWING PROPERTY INTO ITS PRODUCT § 211. Effect of Withdrawals from Mingled Fund E.D.N.Y.2016. Com. (a) cit. in disc., quot. in disc. (erron. cit. as com. (1)). Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an action against investment-fund manager and two offshore funds that manager was discovered to have operated as part of a Ponzi scheme, seeking disgorgement and civil penalties. After the funds were placed into a receivership, receiver for the funds partially denied investors' claim 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