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

Case Citations [1] (July 2021 - April 2022)

handle is hein.ali/retrdrue1204 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 3D Generally D.Minn.2020. Cit. generally in case cit. in sup. In a consolidated action, direct and indirect purchasers of pork products brought putative class actions against pork producers, alleging, inter alia, that defendants were unjustly enriched under North Carolina law when they conspired to fix pork prices in Puerto Rico. This court denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to sustain their unjust-enrichment claims. The court explained that North Carolina followed the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, under which plaintiffs were not required to confer a direct benefit on defendants in order to recover under a theory of unjust enrichment. In re Pork Antitrust Litigation, 495 F.Supp.3d 753, 796. D.Vt.2021. Cit. generally in case cit. in disc. Insured residential care facility sued, among others, former insurer, alleging that defendant breached the parties' claims-made insurance policy by refusing to indemnify plaintiff in an underlying litigation arising from an incident where plaintiff's employee assaulted a resident in plaintiff's care. This court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the underlying litigation was excluded from coverage under the terms of the insurance policy, because plaintiff failed to report the incident to defendant while the policy period was in effect. The court explained that Vermont would likely follow Restatement of Liability Insurance § 35, because Vermont had previously relied on the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment in analyzing similar issues. Inn-One Home, LLC v. Colony Speciality Insurance Company, 521 F.Supp.3d 495, 506. Md.Spec.App.2021. Cit. generally in treatise cit. in disc. and in ftn. Landlord brought, among other things, a claim for unjust enrichment against illegal occupants of premises, alleging that tenant improperly permitted defendants to make use of the premises without paying rent to plaintiff. The trial court entered judgment for defendants. This court affirmed, holding that plaintiff did not have a claim for unjust enrichment against defendants, because the fact that tenant conferred a benefit onto defendants did not necessarily mean that defendants' enrichment was unjust. The court noted that it drew a modern iteration of this doctrine from the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment. Clark Office Building, LLC v. MCM Capital Partners, LLLP, 245 A.3d 186, 196. PART I. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 1. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment D.D.C.2020. Quot. in ftn. After a judgment that plaintiffs had obtained against the District of Columbia and its police department for false arrest and negligent supervision was reversed on appeal, defendants sought restitution from plaintiffs and their law firm for the amount they had paid law firm to satisfy COPYRIGHT ©2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved A -I-I 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