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.
7 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 35 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Jones v. Sparks.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jones v. Sparks Anchor | green | “(1) benefit conferred upon defendant at plaintiff's expense; (2) a resulting appreciation of benefit by defendant; and (3) inequitable retention of benefit without payment for its value.” | 10 |
| 2 | Jones v. Sparks | green | “for a party to prevail under the theory of unjust enrichment, they must prove three elements: (1) benefit conferred upon defendant at plaintiff's expense; (2) a resulting appreciation of benefit by defendant; and (3) inequitable retention of benefit without payment for its value.” | 6 |
| 3 | Schmidt v. Household Finance Corp., II | green | “knew of the benefit and should reasonably have expected to repay” | 4 |
| 4 | Schmidt v. Household Finance Corp., II | green | “to state a cause of action for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff has to allege that: (1) he conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) defendant knew of the benefit and should reasonably have expected to repay plaintiff; and (3) defendant accepted or retained the benefit without pay…” | 4 |
| 5 | Ramsey v. National Ass'n of Music Merchants, Inc. | green | “but plaintiffs' plus factors are no more consistent with an illegal agreement than with rational and competitive business strategies, independently adopted by firms acting within an interdependent market.” | 4 |
| 6 | R. M. Harrison Mechanical Corp. v. Decker Industries, Inc. | green | “the circumstances of the acceptance or retention of the benefit must render it inequitable for the defendant not to compensate the plaintiff.” | 4 |
| 7 | Schmidt v. Household Finance Corp., II | green | “(1) she conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant knew of the benefit and should reasonably have expected to repay the plaintiff; and (3) the defendant accepted or retained the benefit without paying for its value.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.