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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Spring 2026)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0082 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2026 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.Minn.2025. Cit. in case quot. in sup. In multidistrict litigation, direct and indirect purchasers of pork products sued pork producers and others, alleging that defendants engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy to artificially constrict the supply of pork products in the United States. This court denied in part defendants' joint motion for summary judgment on indirect purchasers' unjust-enrichment claims, holding that, because there was sufficient evidence for a jury to determine that defendants formed a conspiracy that benefitted them and harmed indirect purchasers, and it was unclear whether those purchasers had other adequate remedies at law, they could proceed on their unjust-enrichment theories, in the alternative, under the laws of certain states. The court cited Restatement of Restitution § 1 in explaining that unjust-enrichment claims required a showing that a defendant received a benefit at a plaintiff s expense under circumstances that would make it unjust for a defendant to retain the benefit without paying for it. In re Pork Antitrust Litigation, 781 F.Supp.3d 758, 884. Ind.App.2025. Quot. in case quot. in sup. Majority members oflimited-liability companies filed claims for, among other things, unjust enrichment against former sole manager of the companies, alleging that manager failed to credit members' down payments for their planned purchase of additional membership interest units in the companies toward their actual purchase of the additional units. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of members. While largely affirming, this court reversed in part and remanded, holding that majority members could not recover on their claim for unjust enrichment under Restatement of Restitution § 1. The court explained that the purchase of the additional units in the companies was governed by an express written contract that fully outlined the payment terms, and where, as here, an express contract controlled, recovery could not be had on an unjust-enrichment theory. Harper v. S&H Leasing, LLC, 260 N.E.3d 960, 972. COPYRIGHT C2026 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.