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

Case Cittaions [1] (Spring 2024)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0078 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN A LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2024 Citations RESTITUTION PART I. THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (QUASI CONTRACTS AND KINDRED EQUITABLE RELIEF) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES § 1. Unjust Enrichment C.A.2, 2023. Com. (c) quot. in conc. and diss. op. In a putative class action, parent of university student filed claims for, among other things, unjust enrichment against university, after it transitioned to online classes and eliminated in-person facilities and services during a pandemic, seeking a partial refund of tuition and fees plaintiff paid on behalf student. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss. This court affirmed in part and remanded, holding that plaintiff lacked standing under Article III to bring unjust-enrichment claims against defendant, because any economic loss suffered by plaintiff was traceable to plaintiff's arrangement with student, rather than with defendant. The dissent argued that plaintiff's claim was better construed as a request for return of monies paid to defendant, and, under Restatement of Restitution § 1, monetary harms were a form of traditional tangible harm that were sufficient to confer Article III standing. Rynasko v. New York University, 63 F.4th 186, 203. D.Hawaii.2020. Quot. in case quot. in disc. As part of a wider action, insurer of subcontractor sued contractor that hired subcontractor to perform work at a residential subdivision, seeking to recover fees and costs it incurred in successfully defending contractor against an underlying wrongful-death action involving a resident who fell in the subdivision and died of her injuries. This court granted, in part, insurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that insurer owed no duty to defend contractor in the underlying action, and that insurer was entitled to reimbursement of its fees and costs under principles of unjust enrichment. The court explained that it was axiomatic under Restatement First of Restitution § 1 that a person who had been unjustly enriched at the expense of another was required to make restitution to the other. GGA, Inc. v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., 611 F.Supp.3d 1000, 1032. Ind.App.2023. Quot. in case quot. in sup. Contractor that agreed to build the shell of a home for developer brought a claim for quantum-meruit damages against developer, after developer refused to COPYRIGHT (2024 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