About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0081 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations RESTITUTION PART I. THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (QUASI CONTRACTS AND KINDRED EQUITABLE RELIEF) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES § 1. Unjust Enrichment D.Md.2024. Com. (b) quot. in sup., quot. in cases cit. and quot. in sup. Grandson, as representative of his deceased grandmother's estate, filed an unjust enrichment claim against pharmaceutical company, alleging that defendant was enriched by its receipt of grandmother's cervical cells that were obtained by third-party physicians without her consent and used by defendant to develop adeno-associated virus vectors for gene therapy. This court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff stated a claim for unjust enrichment under Maryland law, because the benefit that was conferred onto defendant that was the basis of plaintiff s claim could take any form, including the receipt and use of grandmother's cervical cells. The court reasoned that Restatement of Restitution § 1 used sweeping terms for its broad definition of benefit, encompassing anything in any way that added to defendant's security or advantage. Lacks v. Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, Inc., 734 F.Supp.3d 397, 437. E.D.Wis.2024. Cit. in sup. and cit. in case quot. in sup. Mortgage borrower sued bank that acquired and began servicing his loan, after the bank lost the note and could not establish the mortgage's terms, seeking a declaration that his mortgage was deemed satisfied and claiming entitlement to the return of payments he made on the mortgage under a theory of unjust enrichment. The court granted bank's motion to dismiss. This court affirmed, holding that borrower failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment against bank under Wisconsin law and Restatement of Restitution § 1. The court reasoned, in part, that borrower received the loan funds specified in the mortgage contract, and it was not inequitable for bank to retain the payments made under a contract on which it or its predecessor performed, even if the note was lost. Bell v. PNC Bank National Association, 717 F.Supp.3d 792, 797. COPYRIGHT C2025 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.