211 N.J. Super. 26 - Fasching v. Kallinger’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Romaine v. Kallinger (1988), 188 W. Va. 144 - Slack v. Kanawha County Housing & Redevelopment Authority (1992)
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 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 Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield · Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue · New Jersey Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers v. Long · Riggs v. . Palmer · Mamula v. United Steelworkers
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs contend that ... defendants allegedly 'cashed in' on plaintiffs' misfortune and were unjustly enriched at plaintiffs' expense. Plaintiffs contend that had they known defendants were publishing a book they would have expected remuneration ... No direct relationship existed between plaintiffs and defendants[, however]. Moreover, plaintiffs did not confer any benefit on defendants. Thus, even though plaintiffs assert that they would have expected payment had they known defendants were publishing [a book], this fact lacks legal significance in the absence of any benefit conferred by plaintiffs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply because plaintiffs never expected any remuneration from the publisher and the author and no direct relationship existed between the parties which would create a reasonable expectation of benefit....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“plaintiff expected remuneration from the defendant, or if the true facts were known to plaintiff, he would have expected remuneration from defendant, at the time the benefit was conferred.”
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.