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

Case Citations [i] (July 2016 through April 2017)

handle is hein.ali/retrdrue1194 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 3D Generally C.A.8, 2016. Cit. generally in sup. In an action against insurer brought by widow who sought interest on a life-insurance payment, insurer filed a counterclaim, alleging that it had mistakenly made the payment, because the plan had lapsed 9 days prior to husband's death. This court held that the district court had erred in granting plaintiff s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim. The court cited Missouri Supreme Court precedent that relied on the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment in reasoning that the state supreme court would likely follow § 6 and permit an insurer's claim for restitution even if the payment was made voluntarily. DeCoursey v. American General Life Ins. Co., 822 F.3d 469, 477. PART I. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 1. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment C.A.9, 2016. Com. (a) cit. in disc. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued corporation and its former president, alleging that defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive business practices in violation of the FTC Act by charging recurring subscription fees to customers who did not take affirmative steps to cancel their subscriptions during a free trial period. After corporation settled, the district court found that president was personally liable for corporation's unlawful conduct, and ordered him to pay restitution based on corporation's net revenues from the sale of the subscriptions. Affirming, this court held that the award against president was not limited to the amount of the unjust gains he personally received. Although president correctly pointed out that, under Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1, restitution involved the return to a plaintiff of gains a defendant had unjustly received, the relevant question in a case like this-in which an individual defendant violated the Act by acting in concert with a corporate entity-was whether the individual could be held personally liable for restitution of the corporation's unjust gains. F.T.C. v. Commerce Planet, Inc., 815 F.3d 593, 600. E.D.Pa.2015. Cit. in case quot. in sup.; coms. (a) and (b) quot. in sup.; Rptr's Note to com. (b) quot. in sup. Employee filed a putative class action for, inter alia, restitution against employer whose laptops were stolen by another employee, alleging that defendant breached its implied contract with plaintiff and was unjustly enriched by the savings in costs that it should have reasonably expended to protect plaintiff's and other current and former employees' personal identification information contained on the laptops. This court denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff stated a claim for restitution. Relying on Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment §§ 1 and 39, the court determined that it was proper to assert a claim in restitution in a contractual setting, because plaintiff 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