Mid-Hudson Catskill Rural Migrant Ministry, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Fine Host Corporation, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that in diversity cases, courts apply state “substantive law to resolve . . . dispute[s] regarding [a party’s] entitlement to attorney’s fees”
• inferring that the parties had intended to indemnify expenses incurred in litigation between them where the provision in question \swe[pt] more broadly\ than an earlier provision that covered expenses incurred in litigation with third parties
• indicating that plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating third-party standing
• stating that unjust enrichment “is a required element for an implied-in-law, or quasi contract, and quantum meruit, meaning ‘as much as he deserves,’ is one measure of liability for the breach of such a contract”
• noting that, under New York law, courts “analyze quantum meruit and unjust enrichment together as a single quasi contract claim,” which must be dismissed “if the parties have a valid, enforceable contract that governs the same subject matter”
• stating, under New York law, that “[p]laintiff may not be indemnified for an amount it does not yet owe”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).