75 Illinois opinions name it 3 courts 1957–2026 24 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2026Though “a plaintiff may plead claims alternatively based on express contract and an unjust enrichment, the unjust enrichment claim cannot include allegations of an express contract.” Id. ¶ 34 The section of the circuit court’s dismissal order devoted to plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim consists of three sentences. 2009The doctrine of unjust enrichment permits “recovery of a benefit that was transferred to the defendant by a third party.” (Emphasis added.) HPI Health Care Services, 131 Ill. 2d at 161 . | 7 | 10 |
Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grovegreen2 sentences2021Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248, 257-58 (2004). 2020Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248, 257-58 (2004). ¶ 32 Relevant to the instant appeal, the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 49 (2011) articulates the standard remedy of restitution in money and identifies the usual ways that unjust enrichment is measured for this purpose: “(1) A claimant entitled to restitution may obtain a judgment for money in the amount of the defendant’s unjust enrichment. *** (3) Enrichment from the receipt of nonreturnable benefits may be measured by (a) the value of the benefit in advancing the purposes of the defen | 4 | 4 |
Peddinghaus v. Peddinghausgreen2 sentences2023See HPI Health Care, 131 Ill. 2d at 160 ; Peddinghaus v. Peddinghaus, 295 Ill. 2021See, e.g., Peddinghaus v. Peddinghaus, 295 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Smithberg v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fundgreen2 sentences2017See Smithberg v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 192 Ill. 2d 291, 299 (2000) (“When a person has obtained money to which he is not entitled, under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience he ought not retain it, a constructive trust can be imposed to avoid unjust enrichment.”). 2017See Smithberg v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 192 Ill. 2d 291, 299 (2000) (“When a person has obtained money to which he is not entitled, under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience he ought not retain it, a constructive trust can be imposed to avoid unjust enrichment.”). | 3 | 3 |
Gagnon v. Schickelgreen2 sentences2026However, I agree with the majority that the circuit court should have struck the unjust enrichment claim for alleging that the parties had a contract (Gagnon v. Schickel, 2012 IL App (1st) 120645, ¶ 25 (“the unjust enrichment claim cannot include allegations of an express contract.”)), and allowed plaintiff to replead, without those allegations (see Addison v. Distinctive Homes, Ltd., 359 Ill. 2022Szabo Contracting, Inc. v. Lorig Construction Co., 2014 IL App (2d) 131328, ¶ 25 . ¶ 59 While a party may nonetheless plead a claim for unjust enrichment in the alternative to a breach of contract claim, “the unjust enrichment claim cannot include allegations of an express contract.” Gagnon v. Schickel, 2012 IL App (1st) 120645, ¶ 25 . | 2 | 3 |
Hayes Mechanical, Inc. v. First Industrial, L.P.green2 sentences2021“In a quantum meruit action, the measure of recovery is the reasonable value of work and material provided, whereas in an unjust enrichment action, the inquiry focuses on the benefit received and retained as a result of the improvement provided.” Hayes Mechanical, Inc. v. First Industrial, L.P., 351 Ill. 2019“In a quantum meruit action, the measure of recovery is the reasonable value of work and material provided, whereas in an unjust enrichment action, the inquiry focuses on the benefit received and retained as a result of the improvement provided.” Hayes Mechanical, Inc. v. First Industrial, L.P., 351 Ill. | 2 | 3 |
CitiMortgage, Inc v. Parillegreen2 sentences2025See Parille, 2016 IL App (2d) 150286, ¶ 40 (finding that a bank’s claim was untimely since where an unjust enrichment claim was filed seven years after the funds of the mortgage were released). 2025See Parille, 2016 IL App (2d) 150286, ¶ 40 (finding that a bank’s claim was untimely since where an unjust enrichment claim was filed almost seven years after the funds of the mortgage were released). | 2 | 2 |
Norton v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2015We proceed to review the trial court's decision to grant a constructive trust for abuse of discretion. ¶ 79 Defendant concedes that wrongful conduct is not always a prerequisite (Norton v. City of Chicago, 293 Ill. 2015We proceed to review the trial court’s decision to grant a constructive trust for abuse of discretion. ¶ 79 Defendant concedes that wrongful conduct is not always a prerequisite (Norton v. City of Chicago, 293 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Farwest Steel Corp. v. Mainline Metal Works, Inc.green2 sentences2014See Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. NationsBank of Maryland, 674 A.2d 534, 540-41 (Md. 1996) (holding that a subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim against an owner does “not turn on whether the owner has fully paid the general contractor”); Farwest Steel Corp. v. Mainline Metal Works, Inc., 741 P.2d 58, 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987) (holding that a subcontractor’s supplier did not unjustly enrich a general contractor even though the general contractor failed to pay the subcontractor in full for the supplied materials). ¶ 37 Many of the cases addressing this factual scenario contain li 2014See Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Nationsbank of Maryland, 674 A.2d 534, 540-41 (Md. 1996) (holding that a subcontractor’s unjust-enrichment claim against an owner does “not turn on whether the owner has fully paid the general contractor”); Farwest Steel Corp. v. Mainline Metal Works, Inc., 741 P.2d 58, 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987) (holding that a subcontractor’s supplier did not unjustly enrich a general contractor even though the general contractor failed to pay the subcontractor in full for the supplied materials). ¶ 37 Many of the cases addressing this factual scenario contain li | 2 | 2 |
Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. NationsBank of Marylandgreen2 sentences2014See Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. NationsBank of Maryland, 674 A.2d 534, 540-41 (Md. 1996) (holding that a subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim against an owner does “not turn on whether the owner has fully paid the general contractor”); Farwest Steel Corp. v. Mainline Metal Works, Inc., 741 P.2d 58, 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987) (holding that a subcontractor’s supplier did not unjustly enrich a general contractor even though the general contractor failed to pay the subcontractor in full for the supplied materials). ¶ 37 Many of the cases addressing this factual scenario contain li 2014See Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Nationsbank of Maryland, 674 A.2d 534, 540-41 (Md. 1996) (holding that a subcontractor’s unjust-enrichment claim against an owner does “not turn on whether the owner has fully paid the general contractor”); Farwest Steel Corp. v. Mainline Metal Works, Inc., 741 P.2d 58, 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987) (holding that a subcontractor’s supplier did not unjustly enrich a general contractor even though the general contractor failed to pay the subcontractor in full for the supplied materials). ¶ 37 Many of the cases addressing this factual scenario contain li | 2 | 2 |
CNA Insurance v. DiPaulogreen2 sentences2007In effect, Stewart Title has stepped into the shoes of Burke Chaney and the Bank, neither of which is accused of having "unclean hands." See CNA Insurance Co. v. DiPaulo, 342 Ill. 2007In effect, Stewart Title has stepped into the shoes of Burke Chaney and the Bank, neither of which is accused of having “unclean hands.” See CNA Insurance Co. v. DiPaulo, 342 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Miner v. Gillette Co.green2 sentences2005We also note that the appellate court’s order is contrary to the nature and purpose of a class action, which is intended to “allow a representative party to pursue the claims of a large number of persons with like claims” and which “does not contemplate or necessitate the appearance of absent parties.” Miner v. Gillette Co., 87 Ill. 2d 7, 14 (1981). 2005We also note that the appellate court’s order is contrary to the nature and purpose of a class action, which is intended to “allow a representative party to pursue the claims of a large number of persons with like claims” and which “does not contemplate or necessitate the appearance of absent parties.” Miner v. Gillette Co. , 87 Ill. 2d 7, 14 (1981). | 2 | 2 |
AA Sales & Associates, Inc. v. JT & T Products Corp.green2 sentences2005See also AA Sales & Associates, Inc. v. JT & T Products Corp. , 48 F. Supp. 2d 805, 807-08 (N.D. 2005See also AA Sales & Associates, Inc. v. JT&T Products Corp., 48 F. Supp. 2d 805, 807-08 (N.D. | 2 | 2 |
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. DiMuccigreen2 sentences2017Furthermore, an unjust enrichment claim “does not require fault or illegality on the part of [the] defendant[ ]; the essence of the cause of action is that one party is enriched and it would be unjust for that party to retain the enrichment.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) DiMucci, 2015 IL App (1st) 122725, ¶ 67 . ¶ 37 We find that the circuit court erred by dismissing plaintiffs’ third amended complaint because it stated a cause of action for unjust enrichment against the municipal defendants and the broker defendants. 2017Plaintiffs can maintain an unjust enrichment claim against the broker defendants because plaintiffs allege that the brokers received rebates from the municipal defendants through the wrongful conduct (see, e.g., DiMucci, 2015 IL App (1st) 122725, ¶ 67 ), namely a scheme in which the brokers received a portion of the sales tax through the rebate agreement paid by the municipal defendants in connection with the agreement to deliberately missource retail sales. | 1 | 4 |
Mulligan v. QVC, Inc.green2 sentences2023Mulligan v. QVC, Inc., 382 Ill. 2020Mulligan, 382 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Brockmangreen2 sentences2019People v. Brockman , 143 Ill. 2d 351 , 366, 158 Ill.Dec. 513 , 574 N.E.2d 626 (1991). ¶ 21 Here, Frank's contribution claim is premised on his allegation that the Grossens negligently maintained their portion of the fence, which allowed Frank's cattle to escape and injure Raab. 2019People v. Brockman , 143 Ill. 2d 351 , 366, 158 Ill.Dec. 513 , 574 N.E.2d 626 (1991). ¶ 21 Here, Frank's contribution claim is premised on his allegation that the Grossens negligently maintained their portion of the fence, which allowed Frank's cattle to escape and injure Raab. | 1 | 2 |
Apollo Real Estate Investmend Fund, IV, L.P. v. Gelbergreen2 sentences2012Id. 2012Id. | 1 | 2 |
Addison v. Distinctive Homes, Ltd.green2 sentences2026However, I agree with the majority that the circuit court should have struck the unjust enrichment claim for alleging that the parties had a contract (Gagnon v. Schickel, 2012 IL App (1st) 120645, ¶ 25 (“the unjust enrichment claim cannot include allegations of an express contract.”)), and allowed plaintiff to replead, without those allegations (see Addison v. Distinctive Homes, Ltd., 359 Ill. 2026However, I agree with the majority that the circuit court should have struck the unjust enrichment claim for alleging that the parties had a contract (Gagnon v. Schickel, 2012 IL App (1st) 120645, ¶ 25 (“the unjust enrichment claim cannot include allegations of an express contract.”)), and allowed plaintiff to replead, without those allegations (see Addison v. Distinctive Homes, Ltd., 359 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Seiden Law Group, P.C. v. Segalgreen1 sentence2026See Seiden Law Group, P.C. v. Segal, 2021 IL App (1st) 200877, ¶ 24 (“Because *** there was not a valid and enforceable agreement between the parties, the court erred by dismissing Seiden Law's quantum meruit count with prejudice pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code”). | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds v. Jimmy John's Enterprises, LLCgreen1 sentence2026Reynolds, 2013 IL App (4th) 120139, ¶ 20 (gathering cases demonstrating that section 2-619.1 does not authorize hybrid motion practice, but only allows the motions ot be filed together in a single document). 10 No. 1-24-1045 ¶ 32 “Pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code, the movant challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on certain defects or defenses apparent on the face of the complaint.” Walworth Investments-LG, LLC, 2022 IL 127177, ¶ 39 . | 1 | 1 |
| People Ex Rel. Hartigan v. E & E HAULING, INC.green | 1 | 1 |
| Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Weisberger v. Weisbergergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rubinson v. Rubinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carter v. Cartergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Toushin v. First Merit Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Board of Managers of Hidden Lake Townhome Owners Ass'n v. Green Trails Improvement Ass'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Uptown National Bank of Chicago v. Stramergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Racine Trustgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Galvan v. Northwestern Memorial Hospitalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stathis v. Geldermann, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Id. 2006Stathis, 295 Ill. | 3 | 2006–2022 |
Martis v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co.
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2013Id. at 1025 , 905 N.E.2d at 928 . | 2 | 2013–2023 |
HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015HPI Health Care Services, 172 Ill. 2014HPI Health Care Services, 172 Ill. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Premier Electrical Construction Co. v. La Salle National Bank
green
2 sentences2014Therefore, the case is of little assistance here. -7- Premier Electrical Construction, the court explained why mere knowledge that work is being performed is insufficient: “As a general rule, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply where the entire work is contracted for and placed under a general contractor who has the power to employ whom he chooses, because in such circumstances the owner has the right to presume that work is being done for and on behalf of the contractor.” Premier Electrical Construction, 132 Ill. 2014In Premier Electrical Construction, the court explained why mere knowledge that work is being performed is insufficient: “As a general rule, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply where the entire work is contracted for and placed under a general contractor who has the power to employ whom he chooses, because in such circumstances the owner has the right to presume that work is being done for and on behalf of the contractor.” Premier Electrical Construction, 132 Ill. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009We further note our supreme court’s pronouncement in Bryson that “[b]oth section 13 — 217 and section 2 — 616(b) are remedial in nature and should be liberally construed in favor of hearing the plaintiffs claim.” Bryson, 174 111. 2d at 106, 672 N.E.2d at 1223 . 2009We further note our supreme court’s pronouncement in Bryson that “[b]oth section 13-217 and section 2-616(b) are remedial in nature and should be liberally construed in favor of hearing the plaintiff's claim.” Bryson, 174 Ill. 2d at 106 , 672 N.E.2d at 1223 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2009Relation Back of Unjust Enrichment Claim The second certified question is: “Whether, under the standard articulated by the Illinois Supreme Court in Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343 (2008), a cause of action for unjust enrichment relating to construction work performed in 2000 that is asserted for the first time as part of a re-filed action, is sufficiently close in character and nature of injury to an original case that focused upon a funds transfer that occurred in 2001 such that it can be considered to ‘relate back’ for purposes of the statute of limitations.” Apollo mai 2009Relation Back of Unjust Enrichment Claim The second certified question is: “Whether, under the standard articulated by the Illinois Supreme Court in Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343 (Ill. 2008), a cause of action for unjust enrichment relating to construction work performed in 2000 that is asserted for the first time as part of a re-filed action, is sufficiently close in character and nature of injury to an original case that focused upon a funds transfer that occurred in 2001 such that it can be considered to ‘relate back’ for purposes of the statute of limitations.” Apoll | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Crerar Clinch Coal Co. v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences1997App. 2d 208, 218 , 141 N.E.2d 393 (1957) (court rejected argument in declaratory judgment action that because prayer for relief asked not only for declaration of rights under contract, but also for an accounting and payment of moneys, plaintiff’s action required the application of equitable principles, particularly the doctrine of unjust enrichment). 1997App. 2d 208, 218 , 141 N.E.2d 393 (1957) (court rejected argument in declaratory judgment action that because prayer for relief asked not only for declaration of rights under contract, but also for an accounting and payment of moneys, plaintiff's action required the application of equitable principles, particularly the doctrine of unjust enrichment). | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Norabuena v. Medtronic, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026Therefore, I would reverse and remand on this basis and write separately to add further analysis under Illinois law. ¶ 56 A court should dismiss a claim with prejudice pursuant to section 2-615 “only where it is clearly apparent that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts entitling recovery.” Norabuena v. Medtronic, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 162928, ¶ 39 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Johnson v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence2026Summary Judgment ¶ 38 Plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment to defendant on its breach of contract claim because (1) all of the necessary elements of a breach of contract claim were satisfied, (2) the circuit court’s decision was based on a misreading of the relevant statutes, and (3) defendant should be equitably and judicially estopped from denying the existence of a valid contract. ¶ 39 "Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Walworth Investments-LG, LLC v. Mu Sigma, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026Reynolds, 2013 IL App (4th) 120139, ¶ 20 (gathering cases demonstrating that section 2-619.1 does not authorize hybrid motion practice, but only allows the motions ot be filed together in a single document). 10 No. 1-24-1045 ¶ 32 “Pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code, the movant challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on certain defects or defenses apparent on the face of the complaint.” Walworth Investments-LG, LLC, 2022 IL 127177, ¶ 39 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Moore v. Mandell green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Stark Excavating v. Carter Construction Services green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Carle Foundation v. ILLINOIS DEPT. REVENUE green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| C. Szabo Contracting, Inc. v. Lorig Construction Company green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Partipilo v. Hallman green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Hatchett v. W2X, Inc. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Hartmann Realtors v. Biffar green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corporation, Inc. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Perez v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Best v. Taylor MacHine Works green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Guinn v. Hoskins Chevrolet green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Mobil Oil Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Scholes v. Ames green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| M. J. McCarthy Motor Sales Co. v. Van C. Argiris & Co. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Batler, Capitel & Schwartz v. Tapanes green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Doyle v. Rhodes green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Rutledge v. Housing Authority green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| County of Champaign v. Hanks green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Vanderlaan v. Berry Construction Co. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Plastics & Equipment Sales Co. v. DeSoto, Inc. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Wirth v. City of Highland Park green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Larson v. Buschkamp green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Board of Highway Commissioners v. City of Bloomington green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Burgard v. Mascoutah Lumber Co. green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Jones v. Hodges green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.