Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
unjust enrichment in the law of this country… constitutes a unifying legal concept which explains why the law recognises, in a variety of distinct categories of case, an obligation on the part of a defendant to make a fair and just restitution for a benefit derived at the expense of a plaintiff and which assists in the determination, by the ...
Restitution and unjust enrichment is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. In contrast with damages (the law of compensation), restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been ...
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, the government or the victim must establish a causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages.
Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort (2010) by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell; Landmark Cases in Family Law (2011) by Stephen Gilmore, Jonathan Herring and Rebecca Probert; Landmark Cases in Equity (2012) by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell (6 Jul 2012) Landmark Cases in Land Law (2013) by Nigel Gravells
Jul. 16—SALEM — A former nanny and special education teacher who admitted last year to stealing nearly $160,000 from a Manchester couple while caring for their children was ordered Wednesday ...
The recovery of money in restitution is not, as a general rule, a matter of discretion for the court. A claim to recover money at common law is made as a matter of right; and even though the underlying principle of recovery is the principle of unjust enrichment, nevertheless, where recovery is denied, it is denied on the basis of legal ...
Laws applied Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that an administrative agency's interpretative rules deserve deference according to their persuasiveness.
Where there is a "total failure of consideration" the claimant can seek restitution of the benefit by bringing an action in unjust enrichment against the defendant. Historically speaking, this was as a quasi-contractual claim known as an action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use for a consideration that wholly failed.