Prof Sheehan
I have some crude data that may be of some interest on unjust enrichment in the U.S. I conducted an informal and crude search on LEXIS for case opinions that mention 'unjust enrichment' or 'disgorgement.' The trend is interesting (all figures are in opinions per year)
|
|
Table A: Annual Case Opinions |
|
|
|
|
Unjust
Enrichment or Disgorgement |
|
|
|
|
Federal |
All States |
Texas |
|
|
| 2011 |
4,214 |
1,888 |
79 |
|
|
| 2007 to 2011 avg. |
3,364 |
1,697 |
78 |
|
|
| 2002 to 2006 avg. |
1,459 |
1,131 |
58 |
|
|
| 1997 to 2001 avg. |
807 |
722 |
38 |
|
|
| 1992 to 1996 avg. |
591 |
523 |
19 |
|
|
| 1992 |
527 |
518 |
21 |
|
|
See
Unjust Enrichment in Texas: Is It A Floor Wax or A Dessert Topping? 65
Baylor L. Rev. 153 (2012)
The search was not conducted to distinguish between unjust enrichment as a cause of action or remedy but it shows great growth in the use of the term and that unjust enrichment opinions in federal courts now greatly outreach state opinions.
I suspect that two trends account for the changes: the increasing importance of intangible asset and intellectual property litigation which is mainly federal and the ever increasing rise in federal litigation from the government. Many large government regulating agencies now administer by litigation. Following the initial paths blazed by the SEC, CFTC and Department of Energy, agencies like the FTC, FDA and the Department of Labor are accounting for a sizable portion of the suits. Under federal law, any regulation that authorizes an agency to plead for injunctive relief can also seek unjust enrichment. State government agencies, even those in Texas, are
beginning to follow.
Best Regards
George Roach
Dallas , Texas
From: Duncan Sheehan (LAW) <Duncan.Sheehan@UEA.AC.UK>
To: ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 7:19 AM
Subject: [RDG] Causes of Action
A question:
Does anybody know of anything written on what counts as a cause of action in terms of a theoretical account of what one is and how they work? I’m struggling with the question of whether Canadian unjust enrichment law has one cause of action
or several: Garland v Consumer Gas (and others) talk of the cause of action in unjust enrichment, which given what it says the prerequisites are seems reasonable. Whatever you might think of what the SCC says, it does appear to be a single cause of action,
but there are others (Bell Mobility v Anderson) that talk of several causes of action.
One point of attack seems to me to ask “what counts as a single cause of action?” but I’m struggling to find anything.
Duncan
Ps apologies if you get this twice
Professor Duncan Sheehan
Deputy Head of School
UEA Law
University of East Anglia
Norwich Research Park
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
Phone: +44(1603)593255
====
This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group,
an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law
of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in
the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe,
send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to
all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is
run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.
====
This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group,
an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law
of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in
the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe,
send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to
all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is
run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.