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

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through April 2019)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0068 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION Generally S.D.Ohio, 2018. Cit. generally in case cit. in disc. As part of a wider dispute arising from a failed project to protect a bridge's piers from scour, or the erosion of sediment around the bridge's foundation, construction manager and excavation subcontractor sought indemnification from project engineer under a theory of implied indemnification. This court denied project engineer's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that construction manager and excavation subcontractor stated a claim for indemnification against project engineer by denying that they were negligent in the work they performed on the bridge, and by alleging that project engineer's flawed plans caused damage to the bridge. The court noted that, under Restatement of Restitution, a right of indemnification arose where a plaintiff became liable to a third person for failing to discover or to remedy harm caused by a defendant's negligence or misconduct. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Columbus Downtown Development Corp., 307 F.Supp.3d 719, 731. PART I. THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (QUASI CONTRACTS AND KINDRED EQUITABLE RELIEF) Introductory Note Ohio, 2018. Intro. Note cit. in case quot. in disc. Workers' compensation beneficiary brought a class- action lawsuit against state workers' compensation bureau, alleging that defendant's debit-card program for depositing compensation benefits violated state law by charging him withdrawal fees when he tried to access his funds. The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that plaintiff s claims were equitable rather than legal in kind, because he was seeking funds specifically held by the bank charged with implementing defendant's debit-card program, instead of seeking money as a substitute for a loss. This court affirmed, holding that plaintiff s claims were equitable in nature because plaintiff was seeking funds he was statutorily entitled to but did not receive due to illegal shifting of administrative expenses by defendant. The court cited the Introductory Note to Part I of the Restatement of Restitution in explaining that plaintiff had a right to seek restitution under equity as well as law. Cirino v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, 106 N.E.3d 41, 53. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES § 1. Unjust Enrichment COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved ALI Printed in the United States of America 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