Mayer v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2018
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o prove an unjust enrichment claim more is required than simply showing that one party received a benefit (see, Restatement [Second] of Restitution § 1, comment c), that the enrichment must be such that in equity and good conscience its retention would be unjust (see, Paramount Film Distr. Corp. v. State of New York, 30 N.Y.2d 415, 421 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 388 , 285 N.E.2d 695 , mod. on other grounds 31 N.Y.2d 678 , 336 N.Y.S.2d 911 , 288 N.E.2d 811 , cert. de nied 414 U.S. 829 , 94 S.Ct. 57 , 88 L.Ed.2d 64 ), and to determine whether there has indeed been unjust enrichment the inquiry must focus on the “human setting involved” (McGrath v. Hilding, 41 N.Y.2d 625, 629 , 394 N.Y.S.2d 603 , 363 N.E.2d 328 ), not merely upon the transaction in isolation (id.).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.