Santagate v. Tower’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 46 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Buck v. American Airlines, Inc. (2007), Scannell v. Attorney General (2007)
3 federal appellate · 46 district · 41 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 228 (Child Support Recovery Act of 1992)
Relies on Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co · Salamon v. Terra · Cecio Bros. v. Town of Greenwich · Community Builders, Inc. v. Indian Motocycle Associates, Inc. · Trustees of the Stigmatine Fathers, Inc. v. Secretary of Administration & Finance
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unjust enrichment is defined as 'retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Unjust enrichment is defined as “retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.” Taylor Woodrow Blitman Constr. Corp. v. Southfield Gardens Co., 534 F.Sup. 340, 347 (D.Mass. 1982), quoting from 66 Am.Jur.2d Restitution and Implied Contracts §3 (1962). An equitable remedy for unjust enrichment is not available to a parly with an adequate remedy at law. See ibid.; Popponesset Beach Ass’n. v. Marchillo, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 586, 593 (1996). See also Cedo Bros. v. Greenwich, 156 Conn. 561, 564-65 (1968) (“right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another. With no other test than what, under a given set of circumstances, is just or unjust, equitable or inequitable, conscionable or unconscionable, it becomes necessary in any case where the benefit of the doctrine is claimed to examine the circumstances and the conduct of the parties and apply this standard” [quotations and citations omitted]).”
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.