Albrecht v. Walter’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2011
12 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.
Relationships
Relies on Exchange Elevator Co. v. Marshall · A & a Metal Buildings v. I-S, Inc. · Johnson v. Estate of Zent · Dickson v. Dickson · 34 Md. App. 115 - Weitz v. Marram
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A determination of unjust enrichment is a conclusion of law, Matter of Estate of Zent, 459 N.W.2d 795, 798 (N.D.1990), and is fully reviewable by this court, Opp v. Matzke, 1997 ND 32, ¶ 8 , 559 N.W.2d 837 . There are five elements necessary to proving unjust enrichment: “1. An enrichment; 2. An impoverishment; 3. A connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; 4. Absence of a justification for the enrich ment and impoverishment; and 5. An absence of a remedy provided by law.” Opp v. Matzke, ¶ 8, quoting A & A Metal Bldgs, v. I-S, Inc., 274 N.W.2d 188 , 189 (N.D.1978). A determination of unjust enrichment “holds that a certain state of facts is contrary to equity.” Zent, 459 N.W.2d at 798 .”
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.