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

Case Citations [i] (Fall 2023)

handle is hein.ali/retrdrue0030 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2023 Citations RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 3D Generally Cal.App.2022. Cit. generally in case cit. in disc. City sued football league and member clubs, alleging, inter alia, that defendants were unjustly enriched when they relocated a member club to a different city, resulting in member club increasing in value and football league receiving a relocation fee. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer. This court affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment, because it failed to allege that it had a better legal or equitable right to member club's increase in value and league's relocation fee. The court noted that state law frequently looked to the Restatement of Restitution and the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment in analyzing unjust-enrichment claims. City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 299 Cal.Rptr.3d 463, 479. PART I. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 1. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment C.A.2, 2022. Com. (b) quot. in ftn. Administrative agent for a loan taken out by debtor sued lender's loan managers, alleging that plaintiff was entitled to the return of funds it mistakenly paid to defendants on behalf of debtor. The district court entered judgment for defendants. This court vacated and remanded, holding that defendants were not entitled to retain plaintiff's payment under the discharge- for-value rule, because defendants had constructive notice that plaintiff sent the funds by mistake, and defendants failed to demonstrate that the underlying debt was due at the time of the mistaken payment. Citing Restatement of Restitution § 163 and Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1, the court noted that plaintiff was not deprived of its property rights because it mistakenly transferred its funds into defendant's possession, because mistakenly conveyed property was held in constructive trust. Citibank, N.A. v. Brigade Capital Management, LP, 49 F.4th 42, 84. Colo.App.2022. Quot. in case quot. in sup. Construction contractor sued homeowners, alleging that defendants breached the parties' construction agreement by refusing to pay plaintiff for work performed on improving defendants' home. The trial court, among other things, entered judgment in part for plaintiff. This court affirmed in part, holding that, while plaintiff materially breached the parties' agreement by failing to complete the agreed-upon work in a timely fashion, it was not barred from recovering under a theory of unjust enrichment. Citing Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust COPYRIGHT (2023 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