Berry & Gould v. Berry

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• requiring (1) “[a] benefit conferred upon the defendant,” (2) “[a]n appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit,” and (3) the acceptance “under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without the payment of its value”
• County Comm’rs v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc., 358 Md. 83, 95 n. 7, 747 A.2d 600, 607 n. 7 (2000) (quoting Everhart v. Miles, 47 Md.App. 131, 136, 422 A.2d 28, 31 (1980))
• “Pertinent to this case is the rule that breach of a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is not a basis for the interference tort, if the interference is simply incidental to the breach.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).