§Why CasetextPricing

Dwoskin et al v. Bank of America, N.A.

MOTION for Summary Judgment on State-Law Claims

27 Cited authorities

  1. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court

    51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,585 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

  2. Briarpatch Ltd. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc.

    373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 799 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that breach of fiduciary claim survives preemption because "the underlying right [plaintiffs] seek to vindicate is the right to redress violations of the duty owed to a partnership by those who control it," and noting that "the fact that these claims require a finding that there was a breach of fiduciary duty ... adds an extra element that makes the claims qualitatively different from a claim of copyright infringement"

  3. Stutman v. Chemical Bank

    95 N.Y.2d 24 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 771 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statutory consumer-fraud claims do "not require proof of actual reliance," but do require causation

  4. Lloyd v. General Motors Corp.

    397 Md. 108 (Md. 2007)   Cited 499 times
    Holding that to succeed on a private claim under the MCPA, the plaintiff must have suffered injury "as a result of" the plaintiff's "reliance on" the defendant's misrepresentation

  5. Heldenfels Bros. Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi

    832 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. 1992)   Cited 559 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”

  6. Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co.

    201 Ill. 2d 134 (Ill. 2002)   Cited 342 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that those who "know the truth" do not have a valid ICFA claim

  7. Clark v. Daby

    300 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 133 times
    Dismissing unjust enrichment claim where facts supported only a "purely incidental" benefit to defendant

  8. W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Construction, Inc.

    728 So. 2d 297 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 136 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing order dismissing promissory estoppel claim and remanding with instructions for a jury trial

  9. Ontiveros Insulation Co., Inc., v. Sanchez

    129 N.M. 200 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that, where homeowners had not paid a very “substantial amount” of funds due to a general contractor, the subcontractors could pursue quasi-contractual relief against the homeowners

  10. Berry Gould v. Berry

    360 Md. 142 (Md. 2000)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that the third element of unjust enrichment under Maryland law is acceptance of a benefit under circumstances that would make it inequitable to keep

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 333,232 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,441 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

  13. Section 57-12-10 - Private remedies

    N.M. Stat. § 57-12-10   Cited 160 times
    Authorizing private suits

  14. Section 4908 - Effect on other laws and agreements

    12 U.S.C. § 4908   Cited 14 times
    Preempting "any provisions of the law of any State relating to requirements for obtaining or maintaining [PMI] in connection with residential mortgage transactions ... and any other matter specifically addressed by this chapter"