Howard v. Turnbull

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that unjust enrichment demands a concrete benefit “actually conferred and unjustly retained.”
• stating where “plaintiff has entered into an express contract for the very subject matter for which he seeks recovery, unjust enrichment does not apply”
• \plaintiff's entering into an agreement with known risks precluded recovery under an unjust enrichment claim when an anticipated contingency occurred\
• no recover for unjust enrichment where any benefit was conferred “voluntarily, deliberately, and without complaint” as bargained for
• “If the plaintiff has entered into an express contract for the very subject matter for which he seeks recovery, unjust enrichment does not apply, for the plaintiff's rights are limited to the express terms of the contract.”
• “If the plaintiff has entered into an express contract for the very subject matter for which he seeks recovery, unjust enrichment does not apply, for the plaintiff's nights are limited to the express terms of the contract.’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).