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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 81 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 Wilson Area School District v. Skepton.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wilson Area School District v. Skepton Anchor | green | “the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable when the relationship between parties is founded upon a written agreement or express contract.” | 56 |
| 2 | Joseph Downs v. Peter Andrews | green | “to evaluate whether the gist of the action doctrine applies, a court must identify the duty breached, because 'the nature of the duty alleged to have been breached ... is the critical determinative factor in determining whether the claim is truly one in tort, or for breach of co…” | 10 |
| 3 | Williams v. Hilton Group PLC | green | “calls for a fact-intensive judgment as to the true nature of a claim.” | 8 |
| 4 | Vantage Learning (USA), LLC v. Edgenuity, Inc. | green | “(i) the contract at issue covers only a part of the relationship between the parties, or where (ii) the existence of a contract is uncertain or its validity is disputed by the parties.” | 7 |
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.