Unjust Enrichment

The customers, Charles Ellison and Susan Bresler represented by the Atlanta law firm Strickland Brockington & Lewis sued the Natural Gas Company “under a private right of action in the Gas Act.” The plaintiffs sought to recoup their overpayments charged through the defendant’s violations of the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act (Natural Gas Act). The defendant asked the court to dismiss the case due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish a reasonable claim on which repayment should be given. A trial court granted a motion to dismiss the case, but an

Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. was a holder in due course in its case v. Talcott. In this case and elderly gentleman John C. Talcott, who was defrauded the sum total of $15,700 in the form of two checks, $10,000 and $5,700 respectively. Both checks were issued to D. J. Rivera and were later cashed at Any Kind Checks, Inc. by Salvatore Guarino. Talcott stopped payment on both checks after the initial check was an over payment and the second was discovered be conceived by fraud. Both checks were returned to Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. Any Kind Checks, Inc. brought suit against Talcott and Salvatore Guarino (Twomey & Jennings, 594-597).

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

BOQ then agreed to lend Success money to pay out its existing facilities secured by mortgages over properties, and the plaintiffs signed a deed of consent where the parties agreed that the guarantees originally provided to Statewest operated in respect of the BOQ loan. Success defaulted on the BOQ loan. The mortgage property was sold, with a shortfall of over $2,000,000. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings, and (among other things) sought a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to payment under guarantees.

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

It was found that no, Good Year Tire & Rubber Company was not responsible for the “other cost and losses” of the Plaintiffs. Good Year was not obligated to pay the Plaintiffs since there was no agreement made for payment. The error that was found was bought to Good Year’s attention but the attorneys failed to agree on the correct amount.

Facts: The plaintiffs (Imburgia, Greiner) filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant (Directv) for allegedly charging early termination fees improperly. The defendant was unsure about the application of state vs. federal law and put forth a motion to stay or dismiss the case in preference of arbitration, which was denied by the trial court. The court of appeals affirmed by stating that the state law precedent applies and the arbitration clause was unenforceable.

Plaintiff, Kaycee Land and Livestock, opened a case to hold Defendant, Roger Flahive, personally liable for (contamination) damages after an agreement made by Flahive’s LLC, Flahive Oil & Gas. The District Court of Johnson County presented the case to the Supreme Court of Wyoming to determine if Flahive could be held personally liable. Kaycee Land and Livestock contracted with Flahive Oil & Gas in order to use the surface of the land to raise the Plaintiff’s livestock. Kaycee Land and Livestock claims that Flahive Oil & Gas contaminated the surface area, leaving it useless for Kaycee Land and Livestock’s needs. Flahive Oil & Gas does not have any assets. Therefore, Kaycee Land and Livestock wants to use general corporate veil-piercing principles

In the U.S. many people turn to courts’ to help them settle disputes, gain monetary compensation, or seek justice for a crime. Many people only know the basics about courts within the U.S. In the recent case of Shelly Sterling v. Donald Sterling, who was seeking the aid of the court in order to sell the L.A. Clippers to Ballmer. Let’s use this as a primary example through this paper to better understand, who makes up the court? Furthermore, it will be explained what types of cases are received and the process and jurisdiction of appeals within a state.

There has been over three decades of debate over a reform that affects everything from insurance and health care premiums to the prices of goods and services. The Tort law gives civilians the right to put liability on a company and sue for a multitude of different things if something goes wrong. A main issue of the tort reform is noneconomic damages. Noneconomic damages are awards granted for “pain and suffering.” A solution to this ongoing problem is to set a cap, or ceiling, on the amount of compensation one can receive for his or her “pain and suffering.” An issue with setting caps is that they are argued against as “unconstitutional” and “violates the right to trial by jury” (Hudson) stated in the sixth

     The legal system is an essential element in the successful operation of this country. It is a system that is utilized every day, by every type of person, from the average blue-collar worker to the average Wall Street broker. There is a multitude of ways that the legal system is put to use. One such way is the class action lawsuit. A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr, uses the account of a single case, Anne Anderson, et al., v. W.R. Grace & Co., et al, to illustrate the power and importance of class action lawsuits in the civil justice system.

Issue: i.) The Supreme Court is addressing the constitutional question of whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clause permits a jury to base an award in part upon its desire to punish the defendant for harming persons who are not before the court, also known as nonparty victims.

Mr and Mrs Amadio initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia before Justice Wells. The Amadio’s in their attack for an order to release them from their obligations under the guarantee, sued the bank, claiming their inability to enforce the guarantee on a number of grounds. ‘It was an unconscionable bargain, … procured by undue influence, and induced by misrepresentation or concealment of facts …’ The bank counterclaimed; Justice Wells concluded his judgement dismissing the claims, thus ordering the Amadio’s pay the counterclaim of AUD239 830.85 under the guarantee.

evidence with regard to the issue. The Supreme Court believed the respondent was denied due