Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dominiack Mechanical, Inc. v. Dunbar

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided October 22, 2001No. 71A03-0012-CV-455Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFriedlander, Judge

I concur with the dismissal of the claim for conversion. I disagree, however, with the majority's conclusion that the trial court erred in dismissing Dominiack's claim for unjust enrichment.

In order to prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must establish that the plaintiff has conferred a measurable benefit upon the defendant under such circumstances that retention of the benefit without payment would be unjust. Bright v. Kuehl, 650 N.E2d 311 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). This theory is sometimes referred to as restitution, a contract implied in law, quasi-contract, or, somewhat more…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Nehi Beverage Co., Inc. v. PetriIndiana Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Wright v. PennampedIndiana Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Indianapolis Raceway Park, Inc. v. CurtissIndiana Court of Appeals · 1979
  4. Garage Doors of Indianapolis, Inc. v. MortonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1997
  5. Olsson v. MooreIndiana Court of Appeals · 1992

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API