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

Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - August 2021)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0073 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 2. PROCEDURE § 5. Forms of Action Tex.App.2020. Com. (b) cit. in sup. Attorney sued husband and wife who had hired him to review a personal-injury settlement that they had reached with husband's employer, seeking a declaratory judgment that he owned a 35% interest in an annuity and annuity payments they received under the settlement; husband and wife counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty. At the close of attorney's case, the trial court granted husband and wife's motion for a directed verdict, finding that the parties' attorney-fee agreement was unconscionable, and that, while husband and wife's counterclaim was untimely, they were entitled to disgorgement of attorney's fees. This court reversed in part, holding that husband and wife did not have an affirmative claim supporting the remedy of fee forfeiture, as required to recover disgorgement of fees under Restatement Third of the Law Governing Lawyers § 37, Restatement of Restitution § 5, and the Restatement of Agency § 469. Izen v. Laine, 614 S.W.3d 775, 791. CHAPTER 2. MISTAKE, INCLUDING FRAUD TOPIC 1. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL RULES § 8. Fraud and Misrepresentation D.Kan.2020. Cit. in case cit. in ftn. Purchasers of roofing shingles brought, among other things, claims of fraudulent nondisclosure against manufacturer of roofing shingles, alleging that defendant failed to disclose defects in the shingles and that the shingles did not conform to representations made in defendant's advertisements. This court granted in part defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege the purported nondisclosures with sufficient particularity. The court noted that plaintiffs could have brought an action under Restatement of Restitution § 8 based on defendant's knowledge of plaintiffs' unilateral mistake about the shingles, but it was unclear whether § 8 applied to the facts of this instant action, because plaintiffs did not assert a claim for rescission of a contract on the basis of fraud, and the parties did not extensively brief the issue. Melnick v. TAMKO Building Products, Inc., 469 F.Supp.3d 1082, 1098. TOPIC 2. MISTAKE OF FACT COPYRIGHT ©2021 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved 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