279 Pa. Super. 101 - Gee v. Eberle’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 422 Pa. Super. 262 - Styer v. Hugo (1993), 346 Pa. Super. 229 - Torchia on Behalf of Torchia v. Torchia (1985)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 57 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 Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. · Buchanan v. Brentwood Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. · Paschall's, Inc. v. Dozier · SPIRES Et Ux. v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. · 17 Cal. 3d 803 - Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has a right to recover on the promise.... The existence of that right, however, precludes a claim of unjust enrichment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“in good conscience retain the beneficial interest”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If all of the funds called for under the loan agreement have not been disbursed by the time construction has been completed, the construction lender then has more security than it bargained for. Should a default then occur, the mortgage lender will be in the position of being able to foreclose upon (and perhaps buy in) a completed building even though it has not yet disbursed all of the construction loan money. Under these circumstances, the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that a contractor who had completed the construction in accordance with his construction agreement was entitled to an equitable lien against the undisbursed balance of construction loan funds under the construction loan agreement. In essence, that was a case in which relief was granted in order to avoid an unjust enrichment. We do not believe that this principle can be extended to a situation where the default occurs before the con struction contemplated by the loan agreement has been completed. Under these circumstances, the construction lender is left with the remedy of foreclosing upon a partially completed building. More often than not, the market value of a partially constructed building will be substantially less than the total cost of the labor and material which has already been incorporated into its construction. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the mortgagee has been unjustly enriched. To adopt the rule urged by appellant would place upon construction lenders the unw”
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.