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

Case Cittaions [1] (Fall 2024)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0079 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2024 Citations RESTITUTION Generally C.A.10, 2023. Cit. generally in sup., cit. in law review article cit. in sup. First wife of decedent sued second wife, who was the sole beneficiary of decedent's life-insurance policy, claiming that defendant was unjustly enriched by decedent's failure to comply with a divorce decree requiring him to maintain a policy naming plaintiff as sole beneficiary, and seeking a constructive trust on the policy proceeds. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss. Reversing and remanding, this court held that plaintiff stated claims for unjust enrichment and imposition of a constructive trust. The court predicted that the Colorado Supreme Court would endorse Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 48, which recognized a cause of action under essentially the same circumstances. The court noted that Colorado courts had often favorably cited and relied on the Restatement First of Restitution, which had been recognized as having had a tremendous impact in the United States and abroad. McAnulty v. Standard Insurance Company, 81 F.4th 1091, 1097, 1107. 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.4, 2023. Com. (a) quot. in sup., com. (b) cit. in ftn., com. (e) cit. and quot. in ftn. Estate of patient who participated in a health-and-welfare-benefit plan governed by ERISA sued plan administrators and others, alleging that defendants wrongfully denied patient's request for coverage of a life-saving heart- transplant surgery and were unjustly enriched by keeping money that should have been paid to cover the surgery. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff s request for monetary relief was not equitable and could not be granted under ERISA. This court vacated in part and remanded for a determination as to whether plaintiff plausibly stated facts that would entitle her to COPYRIGHT (02024 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