26 Cited authorities

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
418 U.S. 323 (1974) Cited 3,879 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that a private defamation plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages without proving actual malice
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
485 U.S. 46 (1988) Cited 793 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that “public figures and public officials” must prove “actual malice” in addition to falsity before recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the basis of speech directed at them
Heldenfels Bros. Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi
832 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. 1992) Cited 551 times
Holding “ party may recover under the unjust enrichment theory when one person has obtained a benefit from another by fraud, duress, or the taking of an undue advantage”
Rycoline Products, Inc. v. C W Unlimited
109 F.3d 883 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 465 times
Holding that a motion to dismiss that relies on an entire-controversy defense not appearing on the face of the complaint must be denied without prejudice or converted to a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d)
Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts
344 U.S. 228 (1952) Cited 441 times
Holding that whether trial court's "discretionary resort to estimation of statutory damages is just should be determined by taking into account ... the difficulties in the way of proof of either" actual damages or lost profits and that "[l]ack of adequate proof on either element would warrant resort to the statute in the discretion of the court."
Independent Enterprises v. Pittsburgh Water
103 F.3d 1165 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 230 times
Holding that a substantive due process claim applies only when a constitutionally protected interest like landownership is involved, even if the decision appears "arbitrary and irrational."
Santagate v. Tower
64 Mass. App. Ct. 324 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005) Cited 169 times
Holding that the reasonable expectations of the parties determines whether a benefit is unjust
WWP, Inc. v. Wounded Warriors Family Support, Inc.
628 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir. 2011) Cited 112 times
Affirming a district court that found an expert's testimony on simple math admissible since it, nevertheless, involved substantial financial analysis
Stone v. Essex County Newspapers, Inc.
367 Mass. 849 (Mass. 1975) Cited 243 times
Remanding for consideration of whether plaintiff, who was school employee and member of redevelopment authority, was public official
Walker v. Cotter Properties
181 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. App. 2006) Cited 86 times
Affirming trial court's conclusion that defendants were not unjustly enriched when they believed the money they received from a third-party fraudster was a return on legitimate businesses investments and plaintiff and defendants both lost money due to business dealings with third-party fraudster
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 156,480 times 194 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 214:1B - Right of privacy
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214 § 1B Cited 195 times 1 Legal Analyses
Creating statutory right to privacy

Alharbi v. The Blaze, Inc. et al

26 Cited authorities

Holding that a private defamation plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages without proving actual malice

Holding that “public figures and public officials” must prove “actual malice” in addition to falsity before recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the basis of speech directed at them

Holding “ party may recover under the unjust enrichment theory when one person has obtained a benefit from another by fraud, duress, or the taking of an undue advantage”

Holding that a motion to dismiss that relies on an entire-controversy defense not appearing on the face of the complaint must be denied without prejudice or converted to a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d)

Holding that a substantive due process claim applies only when a constitutionally protected interest like landownership is involved, even if the decision appears "arbitrary and irrational."

Holding that the reasonable expectations of the parties determines whether a benefit is unjust

Affirming a district court that found an expert's testimony on simple math admissible since it, nevertheless, involved substantial financial analysis

Remanding for consideration of whether plaintiff, who was school employee and member of redevelopment authority, was public official

Affirming trial court's conclusion that defendants were not unjustly enriched when they believed the money they received from a third-party fraudster was a return on legitimate businesses investments and plaintiff and defendants both lost money due to business dealings with third-party fraudster

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Creating statutory right to privacy