United States v. Olivares

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the complaint’s lack of allegations “suggesting the conferral of a direct benefit . . . is not in and of itself fatal to a New York unjust enrichment claim as a matter of law”
• finding that under Florida law, there is no requirement that the benefit be bestowed through direct contact
• finding that \Kansas law does not mandate the conferral of a direct benefit under an unjust enrichment\ (citing Peterson v. Midland Nat'l Bank , 242 Kan. 266 , 747 P.2d 159 , 166-67 (1987) )
• discussing Florida unjust enrichment law in depth and collecting at least four Florida cases that permitted unjust enrichment claims on a showing of merely indirect benefit
• analyzing Florida law and determining that it “does not appear to require the conferral of a direct benefit exclusively,” but rather “ ‘that some benefit must flow to the party sought to be charged’ ”
• Florida courts require “some benefit” to flow to the defendant, it finds no requirement that the benefit be bestowed through direct contact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).