Equitable Restitution

33 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Blue Cross AND Blue Shield OF Alabama v. Weitz
  913 F.2d 1544· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 69×
  The court held that ERISA jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) applies to actions by fiduciaries seeking restitution for plan violations, and that defenses raised for the first time on appeal are waived.
• Jordan v. Weaver
  472 F.2d 985· 7th Cir.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 55×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal court orders for retroactive welfare benefits when a state participates in a federal program and agrees to comply with federal law. Federal regulations requiring promptness are consistent with the Social Security Act.
• Kwatcher v. Mass. Serv. Emps. Pension Fund
  879 F.2d 957· 1st Cir.· 1989-07-05 ·cited 41×
  A sole shareholder who owns and controls a corporation is considered an 'employer' under ERISA and is therefore ineligible to participate in an ERISA-regulated pension plan. Employers do not have an implied right of action to recover mistaken contributions.
• United States v. DE Witt
  265 F.2d 393· 5th Cir.· 1959-04-03 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge would reverse and remand for trial, arguing that the court should not grant summary judgment based on a stipulation when the interpretation of 'knowing' and 'false' under the False Claims Act is unclear and requires factual determination.
• The Moosehead Sanitary Dist. v. S. G. Phillips Corp.
  610 F.2d 49· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the State of Maine failed to demonstrate it met the requirements for intervention as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a). Specifically, the state did not establish it was a third-party beneficiary to the contracts or that its potential interest in recovering fun
• Abe Bernstein v. United States
  256 F.2d 697· 10th Cir.· 1958-05-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure eliminate the common law doctrine of election of remedies, and that the trial court erred in applying it to bind the government to its original election of remedies.
• Plucinski v. I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund
  875 F.2d 1052· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-19 ·cited 22×
  An employer has a federal common law cause of action for equitable restitution of mistakenly paid pension contributions, but restitution may be denied if it would result in the underfunding of the pension plan.
• State OF Ohio v. Madeline Marie Nursing Homes # 1 & # 2
  694 F.2d 449· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge erred in issuing turnover orders against the State of Ohio, as the state likely possessed sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and the orders constituted impermissible retroactive monetary awards from the state treasury.
• The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. The United States
  655 F.2d 1047· Ct. Cl.· 1981-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to monetary relief from general Treasury funds under the Tucker Act, but HUD might be liable from separate funds.
• Mitchell v. Riegel Textile, Inc.
  259 F.2d 954· D.C. Cir.· 1958-10-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs are liable for the full amount of their wage underpayments, not limited to the bond amounts, as they were unjustly enriched by the erroneous injunction.
• Nevels v. Hanlon
  656 F.2d 372· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Commissioner's ex parte communications denied the employee due process, but the award of back pay was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
• Frederick Cnty. Fruit Growers Ass'n, Inc. v. Martin
  968 F.2d 1265· D.C. Cir.· 1992-07-07 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the growers were contractually bound to pay the higher piece rate for the 1985 harvest and that the workers were entitled to restitution for the 1983 harvest despite the growers' non-party status in prior litigation.
• B.H. Papasan v. United States
  756 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-05 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars federal court jurisdiction over claims seeking monetary relief from the state treasury, and the plaintiffs failed to state a valid prospective claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• USA Petroleum Corp. v. The United States
  821 F.2d 622· Fed. Cir.· 1987-06-16 ·cited 8×
  The government is responsible for overpayments caused by its own inaccurate measurement tables, and is estopped from recovering those overpayments to the extent the contractor suffered losses due to the breach.
• Bradsheer v. Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles
  20 So. 3d 915· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-09-25 ·cited 6×
  This appeal addresses whether the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles acted unlawfully when it required drivers convicted of DUI before July 1, 2005 to install ignition interlock devices, even though the department lacked statutory authority to do so prior to
• Arca Airlines Ltda. v. United States Customs Serv.
  726 F. Supp. 827· S.D. Fla.· 1989-10-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that customs' penalty assessment and mitigation decisions are not subject to judicial review on the merits, and that the airline's procedural due process claims failed because it received adequate notice and was not prejudiced by any technical error.
• Abbotts Dairies Div. of Fairmont Foods, Inc. v. Butz
  584 F.2d 12· 3d Cir.· 1978-08-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the passing on defense is not applicable and that the district court, not the Secretary, should determine the amount of restitution for overpayments made under an invalid milk marketing order.
• Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. v. Allied Oil Corp.
  178 F.2d 239· 7th Cir.· 1949-12-02 ·cited 4×
  A complaint alleging common law fraud and deceit, based on a seller's false representations of ceiling prices, should not be dismissed even if the transactions also involved potential violations of the Emergency Price Control Act.
• Syntex Corp. v. Charter Co. (In Re Charter Co.)
  81 B.R. 644· M.D. Fla.· 1987-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that contingent claims for reimbursement or contribution are disallowed under Bankruptcy Code § 502(e)(1)(B), even if they arise under CERCLA, as there is no conflict requiring CERCLA to prevail.
• Neem Int'l CV
  Del. Ch.· 2025-12-31
  The Delaware Court of Chancery held that while derivative claims are barred due to the corporation's void status from unpaid franchise taxes, direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty related to the impairment of liquidation preferences are valid. The court found that the defend
• De Fernandez v. Seaboard Marine Ltd
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-06-21
  The court held that the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial for claims brought under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act because the claims involve legal rights and seek legal remedies.
• Romano v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (USA)
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-03-12
  The court held that plaintiffs seeking monetary relief for losses under ERISA Section 502(a)(2) are entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, despite the claims having historical roots in equity.
• Gary v. D. Agustini & Asociados, S.A.
  898 F. Supp. 901· S.D. Fla.· 1995-08-22
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the jurisdictional facts necessary to establish the applicability of 46 U.S.C. § 10314(b), requiring dismissal of his claims.
• Propane Indus., Inc. v. United States Dep't OF Energy
  985 F.2d 586· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1993-01-08
  The court held that the Department of Energy's policy, which precludes a subsidiary of a consent order firm from receiving a refund from consent order funds, was rationally applied to the facts of this case, even though the parent-subsidiary relationship did not exist during the
• Frank L. Ciminelli Constr. Co., Inc. v. Buffalo Laborers Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Fund
  976 F.2d 834· 2d Cir.· 1992-10-05
  An employer seeking to recover mistaken pension fund overpayments must demonstrate that the fund's refusal to repay was arbitrary or capricious and that the equities favor restitution, considering the fund's financial stability and the impact on beneficiaries.
• United States v. Rent-A-Homes Sys. OF Ill., Inc.
  602 F.2d 795· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-06
  The Attorney General, in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 3613 to enforce the Fair Housing Act, cannot seek compensatory monetary damages for victims of discrimination, as the statute only authorizes "preventive relief" and "other order[s]" of an equitable nature.