Restatement Of Restitution

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

• Iconco v. Jensen Constr. Co.
  622 F.2d 1291· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 24×
  Congress has not prohibited states from using the Small Business Act as a standard for determining common law claims of fraud and unjust enrichment, and Iowa courts would likely do so.
• A. L. Rowan & SON v. Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  611 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a contract claim exceeding $10,000 must be transferred to the Court of Claims, and that related unjust enrichment claims arising from the same transaction should also be transferred in the interest of justice.
• Commercial Nat. Bank in Shreveport v. Connolly
  176 F.2d 1004· 5th Cir.· 1949-09-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the contract was binding, the New Bank acquired title to Class A and B assets, and the expenses of the receivership should be paid from the fund administered by the receiver.
• Nelson v. Serwold
  687 F.2d 278· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant is not liable for profits made by other members of a stock pooling agreement because no agency, partnership, or joint venture existed, and that attorneys' fees under a Washington statute were not applicable retroactively to the transaction.
• Hill v. Morris
  85 So. 2d 847· Fla.· 1956-01-27 ·cited 16×
  A widow acquitted of murdering her husband by reason of insanity seeks to claim her statutory dower in his estate. The Florida Supreme Court holds that because Florida's statutory bar to inheritance applies only to those convicted of murder, and because the widow was acquitted (n
• United States for the use of Youngstown Welding & Eng'g Co. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  802 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the endorsement on the joint checks did not constitute a valid release of Miller Act rights due to lack of consideration, and that Youngstown could not recover on breach of contract or unjust enrichment claims.
• Kirtley v. Abrams
  299 F.2d 341· 2d Cir.· 1962-01-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge improperly limited the defendants' ability to present evidence supporting their defense that the written agreement was a sham, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Snepp
  595 F.2d 926· 4th Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's claim for damages was primarily equitable in nature, seeking unjust enrichment, and thus did not necessitate a jury trial, even though punitive damages were mentioned.
• Alden Auto Parts Warehouse, Inc. v. Dolphin Equip. Leasing Corp.
  682 F.2d 330· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Alden's unilateral mistake, resulting from its own negligence and not Dolphin's misrepresentation, did not entitle it to rescission or restitution against Dolphin.
• Naugle v. O'Connell
  833 F.2d 1391· 10th Cir.· 1987-11-18 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the denial of pension benefits was not arbitrary or capricious and that the mistaken payments were recoverable as a matter of fact.
• Francois v. Francois
  599 F.2d 1286· 3d Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly voided the property settlement agreement due to undue influence and that its dispositions of the transferred properties and award of attorney's fees were also proper.
• United States v. Systron-Donner Corp.
  486 F.2d 249· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a party cannot recover payments made under a negotiated fixed-price contract due to the other party's unilateral mistake in calculating its bid, as this does not constitute unjust enrichment.
• Harry Polish in Bankruptcy of Edward F. Dougherty v. Johnson Serv. Co.
  333 F.2d 545· 3d Cir.· 1964-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the payment made by the Archdiocese to the subcontractor was not a transfer of the bankrupt's property, and therefore the trustee could not recover it under the Bankruptcy Act.
• Bond v. OAK Mfg. Co.
  293 F.2d 752· 3d Cir.· 1961-08-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a party can recover on a quantum meruit theory for services performed under an oral contract that is unenforceable due to the Statute of Frauds.
• Epolito v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
  737 F. Supp. 2d 1364· M.D. Fla.· 2010-09-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plan's definition of 'Employer' encompassed Unitrin and its affiliates, meaning pension benefits accrued under a former owner were deductible. The court adopted Florida's contract interpretation rules and the doctrine of contra proferentem for ERISA cases.