Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2013Though defendant is enriched, ‘[t]he mere fact that one party was enriched, even at the expense of the other, does not bring the doctrine of unjust enrichment into play.’ ” Id. (quoting Williams v. Williams, 72 N.C. 2002Though defendant is enriched, “[t]he mere fact that one party was enriched, even at the expense of the other, does not bring the doctrine of unjust enrichment into play.” Williams v. Williams, 72 N.C. | 3 | 3 |
Wright v. Wrightgreen2 sentences1994App. 184, 187 , 323 S.E.2d 463, 465 (1984) (quoting, inaccurately in part, Wright v. Wright, 305 N.C. 345, 351 , 289 S.E.2d 347, 351 (1982)); see also Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C. 1994App. 184, 187 , 323 S.E.2d 463, 465 (1984) (quoting, inaccurately in part, Wright v. Wright, 305 N.C. 345, 351 , 289 S.E.2d 347, 351 (1982)); see also Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Ivey v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2006App. 532, 534 , 328 S.E.2d 837, 839 (1985). {66} Furthermore, “the mere fact that one party was enriched, even at the expense of the other, does not bring the doctrine of unjust enrichment into play. | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Davisgreen1 sentence1994App. 184, 187 , 323 S.E.2d 463, 465 (1984) (quoting, inaccurately in part, Wright v. Wright, 305 N.C. 345, 351 , 289 S.E.2d 347, 351 (1982)); see also Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Homeq v. Watkins
green
1 sentence2013Though defendant is enriched, ‘[t]he mere fact that one party was enriched, even at the expense of the other, does not bring the doctrine of unjust enrichment into play.’ ” Id. (quoting Williams v. Williams, 72 N.C. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Peace River Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Ward Transformer Co.
green
1 sentence2003There must be some added ingredients to invoke the unjust enrichment doctrine.” Peace River Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Ward Transformer Company, Inc., 116 N.C. | 1 | 2003–2003 |