Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Atlas Roofing Company, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 430 U.S. 442 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court decision in administrative law.The decision held that the Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution did not require a jury trial to enforce the civil penalties for violating a federal "public rights" statute, allowing enforcement by an administrative agency.
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 ...
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 ...
A former Fresno IRS employee who also worked as a private tax preparer was sentenced Thursday for 13 felonies related to identity theft and wire and tax fraud.
Truskowski said the jury convicted Owens on the three felony theft counts that totaled $37,986, while Barr argued the restitution was about $17,000 as Owens had performed work on the house and ...
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.
Jan. 30—An eastern Kentucky natural gas company owner has agreed to pay Somerset Gas Services more than $1.2 million in restitution after pleading guilty to manipulating gas meters to make it ...
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.