Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 198 F.3d 802 - Tooltrend Inc Cmt v. Cmt Utensili Srl Cmt Usa Inc

Tooltrend Inc Cmt v. Cmt Utensili Srl Cmt Usa Inc’s Empirical Analysis

198 F.3d 802 · 1999

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably 338 F. Supp. 2d 517 - In Re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation (2004), Babineau v. Federal Express Corp. (2009)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1501999200020102020decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Carter v. City of Miami · Henry S. Bloomgarden v. Charles B. Coyer · Marsh v. Illinois Cent. R. · State v. Boyd

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant, who has knowledge thereof; (2) defendant voluntarily accepts and retains the benefit conferred; and (3) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof to the plaintiff.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A claim for unjust enrichment is an equitable claim, based on a legal fiction created by courts to imply a 'contract' as a matter of law.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the parties have in fact entered into an agreement but without “sufficient clarity, so a fact finder must examine and interpret the parties’ conduct to give definition to their unspoken agreement in order to give the effect which the parties presumably would have agreed upon if, having in mind the possibility of the situation which has arisen, they had contracted expressly thereto.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.