Meehan v. Cheltenham Township

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that subcontractor who has provided services and materials to an owner cannot recover for unjust enrichment if owner did not directly contract with or mislead subcontractor
• explaining that enrichment is not unjust when the benefiting party did not mislead the party seeking recovery (citing Restatement (First) of Restitution § 110 (Am. L. Inst. 1936))
• noting that unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy, requiring for recovery that there be both “(1) an enrichment, and (2) an injustice resulting if recovery for the enrichment is denied”
• \[t]he mere fact that one party benefits from the act of another is not of itself sufficient to justify restitution.\
• “The Restatement of Restitution sets forth various rules for the determination of whether the retention of a particular enrichment is unjust.”
• “[t]he mere fact that one party benefits from the act of another is not of itself sufficient to justify restitution.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

91 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 1999-03-29· cited 219×
• Mitchell v. Moore
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-04-12· cited 174×
• Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-06-10· cited 173×
• Styer v. Hugo
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-01-19· cited 135×
• Weiner v. Bank of King of Prussia
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1973-04-30· cited 118×
• Torchia on Behalf of Torchia v. Torchia
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-08-09· cited 112×
• Northeast Fence & Iron Works, Inc. v. Murphy Quigley Co.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-09-18· cited 85×
• Roman Mosaic & Tile Co. v. Vollrath
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-12-11· cited 64×
• Continental Forest Products, Inc. v. Chandler Supply Co.
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1974-02-04· cited 62×
• D.A. Hill Co. v. Clevetrust Realty Investors
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-04-25· cited 57×
• Limbach Co., LLC v. City of Philadelphia
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-07-24· cited 51×
• Gagne v. Vaccaro
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2003-12-09· cited 51×
• Zvonik v. Zvonik
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-10-02· cited 44×
• Enslin v. Coca-Cola Co.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2015-09-30· cited 42×
• Wilson, A. v. Parker, C.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2020-01-24· cited 42×
• Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2018-03-06· cited 39×
• Global Ground Support, LLC v. Glazer Enterprises, Inc.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-09-29· cited 32×
• Guarantee Electric Co. v. Big Rivers Electric Corp.
  W.D. Kentucky· 1987-09-24· cited 31×
• Beco Construction Co. v. Bannock Paving Co.
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1990-08-30· cited 30×
• Kemp v. Majestic Amusement Co.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1967-11-14· cited 30×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance v. Klein
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1956-04-11· cited 23×
• Bailis v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
  Third Circuit· 1942-06-16· cited 19×
• Jones v. Amsel
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1957-03-18· cited 15×