Mitchell v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 52 state decisions

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

1. “(1) benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff; (2) appreciation of such benefits by defendant; and (3) acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value, (citations omitted). The application of the doctrine depends on the particular factual circumstances of the case at issue. In determining if the doctrine applies, our focus is not on the intention of the parties, but rather on whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Novae Corporate Underwriting Ltd. v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance · Bennett v. Bank of America National Assoc. (In re Bennett)

2. “There are two bases upon which a judgment n.o.v. can be entered: one, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and/or two, the evidence is such that no two reasonable minds could disagree that the outcome should have been rendered in favor of the movant. With the first, the court reviews the record and concludes that even with all factual inferences decided adverse to the movant the law nonetheless requires a verdict in his favor, whereas with the second the court reviews the evidentiary record and concludes that the evidence was such that a verdict for the movant was beyond peradventure.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goldberg Ex Rel. Goldberg v. Isdaner · 2000 Pa. Super. 148 - B & L Asphalt Industries, Inc. v. Fusco

3. “102. Defendant’s conduct in enticing Plaintiff and putative class members to purchase the Misbranded Products through false and misleading advertising and packaging as described throughout this Complaint is unlawful because the statements contained on Defendant’s product labels are untrue. Defendant took monies from Plaintiff and members of the putative class for products promised to be bearing the contested labeling representations even though the Mis-branded Products did not conform to those representations. 103. Defendant wrongfully secured a benefit from Plaintiff and the putative class—their money to purchase products that they believed had healthful qualities the products actually did not have—and it would be unconscionable for Defendant to retain the funds paid by Plaintiff and the putative class when the products did not provide the advertised benefits. 104. Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the putative class as result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct alleged herein, thereby creating a quasicontractual obligation on Defendant to restore these ill-gotten gains to Plaintiff and putative class members. 105. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unjust enrichment, Plaintiff and putative class members are entitled to restitution, in an amount to be proven at trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Whitaker v. Herr Foods, Inc.