13 canonical passages across 11 cases, quoted by 112 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 Republic Bank & Trust Company v. Bear Stearns & Company., Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Republic Bank & Trust Company v. Bear Stearns & Company., Inc. Anchor | green | “(1) to specify the allegedly fraudulent statements; (2) to identify the speaker; (3) to plead when and where the statements were made; and (4) to explain what made the statements fraudulent.” | 19 |
| 2 | Freeman Industries, LLC v. Eastman Chemical Co. | green | “the most significant requirement of an unjust enrichment claim is that the benefit to the defendant be unjust.” | 14 |
| 3 | Whitehaven Community Baptist Church v. Holloway | green | “unjust enrichment is a quasi-contractual theory or is a contract implied-in-law in which a court may impose a contractual obligation where one does not exist.” | 12 |
| 4 | Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craig | green | “intentional misrepresentation,” | 11 |
| 5 | Freeman Industries, LLC v. Eastman Chemical Co. | green | “acceptance of such benefit under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof.” | 11 |
| 6 | Freeman Industries, LLC v. Eastman Chemical Co. | green | “1) a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; 2) appreciation by the defendant of such benefit; and 3) acceptance of such benefit under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof.” | 8 |
| 7 | Traxler v. PPG Industries, Inc. | green | “rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement may be relaxed when certain information is solely within the defendant's knowledge.” | 7 |
| 8 | Paschall's, Inc. v. Dozier | green | “courts will impose a contractual obligation under an unjust enrichment theory when: (1) there is no contract between the parties or a contract has become unenforceable or invalid; and (2) the defendant will be unjustly enriched absent a quasi-contractual obligation.” | 6 |
| 9 | Jaffe v. Bolton | green | “courts will impose a contractual obligation under an unjust enrichment theory when: (1) there is no contract between the parties or a contract has become unenforceable or invalid; and (2) the defendant will be unjustly enriched absent a quasi-contractual obligation.” | 6 |
| 10 | North Port Firefighters' Pension-Local Option Plan v. Fushi Copperweld, Inc. | green | “specific allegations as to each defendant's alleged involvement.” | 6 |
| 11 | Peggy L. Smith, Individually and as Trustee of Peggy L. Smith Trust v. Hi-Speed, Inc. | green | “must demonstrate . . . that there is no existing, enforceable contract between the parties covering the same subject matter.” | 5 |
| 12 | D.E. & J Ltd. Partnership v. Conaway | green | “group pleading' . . . fails to meet . . . rule 9(b)'s specificity requirements.” | 4 |
| 13 | Power & Telephone Supply Company, Inc. v. Suntrust Banks, Inc. | green | “statements of future intention, opinion, or sales talk are generally not actionable because they do not involve representations of material past or present fact.” | 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.