22 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mantiply v. Mantiplygreen2 sentences2010We conclude that the trial court's analysis asks too much of what it considers to be a separate type of unjust-enrichment claim, particularly insofar as providing a basis for the certification of a nationwide class action. [6] Citing Mantiply v. Mantiply, 951 So.2d 638 (Ala.2006), Wyeth argues that an unjust-enrichment claim based on an allegation that the "defendant holds money which, in equity and good conscience, belongs to the plaintiff," requires proof of mistake on the part of the plaintiff or wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant. 2010The success or failure of an unjust-enrichment claim depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. [Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v.] Heilman, [ 876 So.2d 1111 (Ala.2003) ].” Mantiply v. Mantiply, 951 So.2d 638, 654-55 (Ala.2006) Regions Bank argues on cross-appeal that the trial court could not have based its judgment in favor of BSC on unjust enrichment because there was no evidence to establish the value of the alleged benefit to Regions Bank. | 4 | 5 |
Snider v. Morgangreen2 sentences2023See Snider v. Morgan, 113 So. 3d 643, 655 (Ala. 2012) ('Our research similarly confirms that there is a distinct absence of authority definitively stating the statute of limitations applicable to an unjust-enrichment claim. 2015Snider v. Morgan, 113 So.3d 643, 655 (Ala.2012)(noting that it is unclear whether a statute of limitations applicable to contract claims or one applicable to tort claims would apply to an unjust-enrichment claim: “Our research similarly confirms that there is a distinct absence of authority definitively stating the statute of limitations applicable to an unjust-enrichment claim. | 2 | 2 |
Dickinson v. Cosmos Broadcasting Co., Inc.green2 sentences2016Co., 782 So.2d 260, 266 (Ala.2000) (quoting Hancock-Ha zlett Gen. 2015Co., 782 So.2d 260, 266 (Ala.2000) (quoting Hancock-Hazlett Gen. | 2 | 2 |
Kennedy v. Polar-BEK & Baker Wildwoodgreen2 sentences2014Regarding the unjust-enrichment claim, we note that our supreme court “has recognized[,] ... where an express contract exists between two parties, the law generally will not recognize an implied contract regarding the same subject matter,” Kennedy v. Polar-BEK & Baker Wildwood P’ship, 682 So.2d 443, 447 (Ala.1996); in. light of the entry of a judgment in his favor on his breach-of-contract claim, Bryan cannot also succeed on his''unjust-enrichment claim. 2000See Kennedy v. Polar-BEK & Baker Wildwood Partnership, 682 So.2d 443, 447 (Ala.1996). | 2 | 2 |
Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc. v. Heilmangreen2 sentences2010The success or failure of an unjust-enrichment claim depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. [Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v.] Heilman, [ 876 So.2d 1111 (Ala.2003) ].” Mantiply v. Mantiply, 951 So.2d 638, 654-55 (Ala.2006) Regions Bank argues on cross-appeal that the trial court could not have based its judgment in favor of BSC on unjust enrichment because there was no evidence to establish the value of the alleged benefit to Regions Bank. 2003The second exception is that I express no opinion on the holding that "the trial court erred in certifying the unjust-enrichment claim for class-action resolution," 876 So.2d at 1123. | 1 | 5 |
Irwin v. Jimmy John's Franchise, LLCgreen1 sentence2024She did not pay for a side order of data security and protection." Irwin v. Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, 175 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1072 (C.D. | 1 | 1 |
Mann v. GTE Mobilnet of Birmingham Inc.green1 sentence2017See Mann v. GTE Mobilnet of Birmingham Inc. , 730 So.2d 150 , 154 (Ala. 1999) ("Although an order denying class certification is an interlocutory order, it is nevertheless an appealable 'final' order because it 'finally determines a claim of right separate from and collateral to the rights asserted in the cause of action' and makes further judicial proceedings in the action ineffective.") (quoting Butler v. Audio/Video Affiliates, Inc. , 611 So.2d 330 , 331 (Ala. 1992) (emphasis omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Audio/Video Affiliates, Inc.green1 sentence2017See Mann v. GTE Mobilnet of Birmingham Inc. , 730 So.2d 150 , 154 (Ala. 1999) ("Although an order denying class certification is an interlocutory order, it is nevertheless an appealable 'final' order because it 'finally determines a claim of right separate from and collateral to the rights asserted in the cause of action' and makes further judicial proceedings in the action ineffective.") (quoting Butler v. Audio/Video Affiliates, Inc. , 611 So.2d 330 , 331 (Ala. 1992) (emphasis omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Haynes v. Alfa Financial Corp.green1 sentence2010Corp., 730 So.2d 178, 181 (Ala.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Haney v. Allstate Insurancegreen1 sentence2010In Precision American Corp. v. Leasing Service Corp., 505 *246 So.2d 380, 381 (Ala.1987), this Court recognized the difficulty of the question before us. “ ‘The question before this Court is whether the partial summary judgment [Leasing Service Corp.] received completely disposed of a claim so as to make that judgment final. | 1 | 1 |
Chapman Nursing Home, Inc. v. McDonaldgreen1 sentence2009See Chapman Nursing Home, Inc. v. McDonald, 985 So.2d 914, 921 (Ala.2007) (stating that the doctrine of res judicata applies to “ ‘ “all legal theories and claims arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts” ’ ” and that “two causes of action are the same for res judicata purposes ‘ “when the same evidence is applicable in both actions.” ’ ” (quoting other cases; emphasis omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Floyd v. Title Exchange and Pawn of Anniston, Inc.green1 sentence2006See generally 66 Am.Jur.2d Restitution and Implied Contracts § 24 (2001) ("[A]n action for unjust enrichment cannot lie in the face of an express contract."). [2] We note that in Floyd v. Title Exchange & Pawn of Anniston, Inc., 620 So.2d 576 (Ala. 1993), and subsequently in Blackmon v. Downey, 624 So.2d 1374 (Ala. 1993), our supreme court held that a certificate of title to an automobile is "tangible personal property" within the meaning of the Act. | 1 | 1 |
Blackmon v. Downeygreen1 sentence2006See generally 66 Am.Jur.2d Restitution and Implied Contracts § 24 (2001) ("[A]n action for unjust enrichment cannot lie in the face of an express contract."). [2] We note that in Floyd v. Title Exchange & Pawn of Anniston, Inc., 620 So.2d 576 (Ala. 1993), and subsequently in Blackmon v. Downey, 624 So.2d 1374 (Ala. 1993), our supreme court held that a certificate of title to an automobile is "tangible personal property" within the meaning of the Act. | 1 | 1 |
Marshall Durbin & Co. v. Jasper Utilities Bd.green2 sentences2000P., are "virtually identical," citing Marshall Durbin Co. v. Jasper Utilities Bd. , 437 So.2d 1014 , 1025 (Ala. 1983), and that "[f]ederal authorities are persuasive when [a court is] interpreting the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure." citing Rowan v. First Bank of Boaz , 476 So.2d 44 , 46 (Ala. 1985). 2 The trial court found that the unjust-enrichment claim was unsuitable for class treatment because the claim was derivative of the plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty, fraudulent-suppression, or fraudulent-misrepresentation claims. 2000NOTES [1] In a footnote, the trial court notes that Rule 23, Ala.R.Civ.P., and Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P., are "virtually identical," citing Marshall Durbin & Co. v. Jasper Utilities Bd., 437 So.2d 1014, 1025 (Ala.1983), and that "[f]ederal authorities are persuasive when [a court is] interpreting the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure," citing Rowan v. First Bank of Boaz, 476 So.2d 44, 46 (Ala.1985). [2] The trial court found that the unjust-enrichment claim was unsuitable for class treatment because the claim was derivative of the plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty, fraudulent-suppression, or fra | 1 | 1 |
Rowan v. First Bank of Boazgreen2 sentences2000P., are "virtually identical," citing Marshall Durbin Co. v. Jasper Utilities Bd. , 437 So.2d 1014 , 1025 (Ala. 1983), and that "[f]ederal authorities are persuasive when [a court is] interpreting the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure." citing Rowan v. First Bank of Boaz , 476 So.2d 44 , 46 (Ala. 1985). 2 The trial court found that the unjust-enrichment claim was unsuitable for class treatment because the claim was derivative of the plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty, fraudulent-suppression, or fraudulent-misrepresentation claims. 2000NOTES [1] In a footnote, the trial court notes that Rule 23, Ala.R.Civ.P., and Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P., are "virtually identical," citing Marshall Durbin & Co. v. Jasper Utilities Bd., 437 So.2d 1014, 1025 (Ala.1983), and that "[f]ederal authorities are persuasive when [a court is] interpreting the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure," citing Rowan v. First Bank of Boaz, 476 So.2d 44, 46 (Ala.1985). [2] The trial court found that the unjust-enrichment claim was unsuitable for class treatment because the claim was derivative of the plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty, fraudulent-suppression, or fra | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scrushy v. Tucker
green
2 sentences2010Wyeth then argues that the phrase "holds money" in the description of an unjust-enrichment claim, as stated in Heilman , refers to the "enrichment" element of "unjust enrichment" and that the phrase "in equity and good conscience" refers to the "unjust" element of "unjust enrichment." Consistent with this Court's statements in Mantiply and Welch , Wyeth argues that, at least under Alabama law, "in the absence of some mistake, misreliance, fraud or wrongful conduct, there may be enrichment, but not unjust enrichment." [7] Among other things, BCBSAL responds by asserting that Scrushy v. Tucker, 2010In Scrushy v. Tucker, 955 So.2d 988 (Ala.2006), this Court examined whether a partial summary judgment on an unjust-enrichment claim asserted by the plaintiff, Tucker, was certifiable as final under Rule 54(b): “ ‘[F]or a Rule 54(b) certification of finality to be effective, it must fully adjudicate at least one claim or fully dispose of the claims as they relate to at least one party.’ Haynes v. Alfa Fin. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Nance by and Through Nance v. Matthews
green
1 sentence2025Nance, 622 So. 2d at 299 .7 Accepting Laborde and Cruz- Candelo's allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that recovery 7The Bank argues that Laborde and Cruz-Candelo cannot bring an unjust-enrichment claim because parties cannot bring such a quasi- contract claim when there is an express contract between the parties. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Clark v. Black
green
1 sentence2017This Court addressed a similar situation in Clark v. Black , 630 So.2d 1012 (Ala. 1993). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Wyeth, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama
green
1 sentence2011Our supreme court has stated: “ ‘The retention of a benefit is ‘unjust,’ for purposes of an unjust enrichment claim, if the donor of the benefit acted under a mistake of fact or in misreliance on a right or duty, or the recipient of the benefit engaged in some unconscionable conduct, such as fraud, coercion, or abuse of a confidential relationship.’ ” Wyeth, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 42 So.3d 1216 , 1224 n. 7 (Ala.2010) (quoting 42 C.J.S. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Cheminova America Corporation v. Corker
green
2 sentences2010Wyeth's reply brief, at 20 n. 8 (citing Cheminova, 779 So.2d at 1179 ). 2010Wyeth’s reply brief, at 20 n. 8 (citing Cheminova, 779 So.2d at 1179 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Precision American Corp. v. Leasing Service Corp.
green
1 sentence2006In Precision American Corp. v. Leasing Service Corp. , 505 So.2d 380 , 381 (Ala. 1987), this Court recognized the difficulty of the question before us. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Funliner of Alabama, LLC v. Pickard
green
1 sentence2003Pickard, 873 So.2d at 211 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.