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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Spring 2026)

handle is hein.ali/retrdrue1211 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2026 Citations RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 3D Generally N.D.Cal.2024. Cit. generally in case quot. in ftn. In multi-district litigation, thirty-four states sued social-media company on behalf of children and adolescents, alleging that company violated states' consumer protection laws by designing its online platforms to foster compulsive use by minors, which resulted in a variety of harms to children, local governments, and the public health. This court denied in part company's motion to dismiss or limit the scope of states' claims for restitution under states' consumer-protection laws. The court explained that restitution was a term of art that varied among the states, and that Kentucky embraced a broader approach to restitution that encompassed unjust enrichment and disgorgement, and a willingness to adopt equitable measures where appropriate that were consistent with the principles set forth in the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment. In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, 753 F.Supp.3d 849, 915. Nev.2025. Cit. generally in sup. Providers of emergency medical services sued insurers and third-party health-insurance administrators that did not have contracts with providers, alleging that defendants were unjustly enriched by failing to adequately compensate plaintiffs for services that providers were required to render to defendants' members under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for plaintiffs. This court affirmed in part, holding, as a matter of first impression, that a provider that was required to provide emergency care to an insured patient had a claim for unjust enrichment against the patient's insurer if the insurer failed to reimburse the provider for the reasonable value of the services provided and the provider did not bill the patient for the amount not paid by the insurer. The court looked to and found support in the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment in determining that unjust-enrichment claims were appropriate under such circumstances. UnitedHealthCare Insurance Company v. Fremont Emergency Services (Mandavia), Ltd., 570 P.3d 107, 120. PART I. INTRODUCTION 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.