Unjust Enrichment

July 11, 2017 § Leave a comment

Unjust Enrichment: An Alternative Cause of Action When There is Not a Written Contract Between the Parties

By: Jennifer Burt Tee

February 19, 2015

What if you did not enter into a written contract with another party, but you gave funds, services, or some other interest to the party and the other party fails to give you anything in return?  If there is no written contract between you and the other party, it may be difficult to prove that the other party breached the contract. However, you may be able to recover under the theory of unjust enrichment.

The theory of unjust enrichment is based on a contract implied in law. People ex rel. Hartigan v. E & E Hauling, Inc., 153 Ill. 2d 473, 497, 607 N.E. 2d 165, 177 (Ill. 1992). To prevail on the theory of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant has unjustly retained a benefit to the plaintiff’s detriment, and that defendant’s retention of the benefit violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. HPI Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, 131 Ill.2d 145, 160, 545 N.E.2d 672 (Ill. 1989). To recover under this theory, plaintiffs must show that defendant voluntarily accepted a benefit which would be inequitable for him to retain without payment. Id. (citing Premier Electrical Construction Co. v. La Salle National Bank, 132 Ill. App. 3d 485, 496, 477 N.E. 2d 1249).

“Because unjust enrichment is based on an implied contract, where there is a specific contract which governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application.”  Hartigan, 153 Ill.2d 497.  However, in a lawsuit, a plaintiff may plead unjust enrichment “in the alternative” to a breach of contract action.  One of the reasons that a plaintiff may plead unjust enrichment “in the alternative” is that if the contract is deemed unenforceable by the court, the plaintiff may then proceed on his cause of action of unjust enrichment in the absence of an enforceable contract between the parties.




Legally Kidnapped How much monies are they protecting to these agencies and the justice systems?

April 15, 2017 § Leave a comment

Legally Kidnapped
Police: Foster dad recruited boys into child porn ring
Gruesome Sexual Assault Lawsuit Linked to Citrus Health Network
Is Kate Gosselin Being Investigated by Child Protective Services?
Night shift groper gets probation
Activists want to see changes to foster care system in wake of child porn case
Police: Foster dad recruited boys into child porn ring
Posted: 19 Feb 2015 01:35 PM PST
Police: Foster dad recruited boys into child porn ring

A foster parent who works at a high school is one of three suspects arrested in a child pornography investigation that spanned from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.
Gruesome Sexual Assault Lawsuit Linked to Citrus Health Network
Posted: 19 Feb 2015 12:23 PM PST
Gruesome Sexual Assault Lawsuit Linked to Citrus Health Network

A recent lawsuit that dropped in a Miami district court spells out a sad tale of sexual assault at a foster home — a situation that could have been prevented had responsible adults paid attention. According to the detailed unveiled in the lawsuit filed by the mother, Precious Sharpe, the plaintiff’s daughter entered the state’s child custody system in 2002. Instead of protecting the child, the young girl was placed in a situation that teed her up for further sexual assault — sexual assault that continued under the noses of a foster parent and the non-profit tasked with her care. According to the lawsuit, the assault continued under the watch of Citrus Health Network, an organization we’ve written about plenty here at New Times.

Is Kate Gosselin Being Investigated by Child Protective Services?
Posted: 19 Feb 2015 11:29 AM PST
Is Kate Gosselin Being Investigated by Child Protective Services?

Kate Gosselin seems to find herself dealing with vicious rumors every few months, thanks in great part to comments made by her ex Jon Gosselin. He has alleged that she has been abusive toward their eight children at various points in time, but no charges have ever been filed against her. Supposedly, child protective services have once again been called on the reality star, and it seems that her ex may once again be responsible.

Night shift groper gets probation
Posted: 19 Feb 2015 09:56 AM PST
Night shift groper gets probation

A city man has been given a suspended sentence concerning an incident involving a female coworker at a Copper Cliff group home almost five years ago.
DAVE FAGON, disgraced “night shift groper” wins probation.

Activists want to see changes to foster care system in wake of child porn case
Posted: 19 Feb 2015 08:09 AM PST
Activists want to see changes to foster care system in wake of child porn case

Activists looking for reform in the foster care system were canvassing cars parked outside Desert Hot Springs High School today.

Rule 23 exceptions and rules

March 1, 2017 § Leave a comment

Rule 23. Disposition of Cases in the Appellate Court
The decision of the Appellate Court may be expressed in one of the following forms: a full opinion, a concise written order, or a summary order conforming to the provisions of this rule. All dispositive opinions and orders shall contain the names of the judges who rendered the opinion or order.

(a) Opinions. A case may be disposed of by an opinion only when a majority of the panel deciding the case determines that at least one of the following criteria is satisfied:

(1) the decision establishes a new rule of law or modifies, explains or criticizes an existing rule of law; or

(2) the decision resolves, creates, or avoids an apparent conflict of authority within the Appellate Court.

(b) Written Order. Cases which do not qualify for disposition by opinion may be disposed of by a concise written order which shall succinctly state:

(1) in a separate introductory paragraph, a concise syllabus of the court’s holding(s) in the case;

(2) the germane facts;

(3) the issues and contentions of the parties when appropriate;

(4) the reasons for the decision; and

(5) the judgment of the court.

(c) Summary Order. In any case in which the panel unanimously determines that any one or more of the following dispositive circumstances exist, the decision of the court may be made by summary order. A summary order may be utilized when:

(1) the Appellate Court lacks jurisdiction;

(2) the disposition is clearly controlled by case law precedent, statute, or rules of court;

(3) the appeal is moot;

(4) the issues involve no more than an application of well-settled rules to recurring fact situations;

(5) the opinion or findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court or agency adequately explain the decision;

(6) no error of law appears on the record;

(7) the trial court or agency did not abuse its discretion; or

(8) the record does not demonstrate that the decision of the trier of fact is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

When a summary order is issued it shall contain:

(i) a statement describing the nature of the case and the dispositive issues without a discussion of the facts;

(ii) a citation to controlling precedent, if any; and

(iii) the judgment of the court and a citation to one or more of the criteria under this rule which supports the judgment, e.g., “Affirmed in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 23(c)(1).”

The court may dispose of a case by summary order at any time after the case is docketed in the Appellate Court. The disposition may provide for dismissal, affirmance, remand, reversal or any combination thereof as appropriate to the case. A summary order may be entered after a dispositive issue has been fully briefed, or if the issue has been raised by motion of a party or by the court, sua sponte, after expiration of the time for filing a response to the motion or rule to show cause issued by the court.

(d) Captions. All opinions and orders entered under this rule shall bear a caption substantially conforming to the requirements of Rule 330. Additionally, an opinion or order entered under subpart (a) or (b) of this rule must clearly show the date of filing on its initial page.

(e) Effect of Orders.

(1) An order entered under subpart (b) or (c) of this rule is not precedential and may not be cited by any party except to support contentions of double jeopardy, res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case. When cited for these purposes, a copy of the order shall be furnished to all other counsel and the court.

(2) An order entered under subpart (b) of this rule must contain on its first page a notice in substantially the following form:

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

(f) Motions to Publish. If an appeal is disposed of by order, any party may move to have the order published as an opinion. The motion shall set forth the reasons why the order satisfies the criteria for disposition as an opinion and shall be filed within 21 days of the entry of the order.

(g) Electronic Publication. In order to make available to the public all opinions and orders entered under subparts (a) and (b) of this rule, the clerks of the Appellate Court shall transmit an electronic copy of each opinion or order filed in his or her district to the webmaster of the Illinois Supreme and Appellate Courts’ Web site on the day of filing. No opinion or order may be posted to the Web site that does not substantially comply with the Style Manual for the Supreme and Appellate Courts.

(h) Public-Domain Case Designators

An opinion or order entered under subpart (a) or (b) of this rule must be assigned a public-domain case designator and internal paragraph numbers, as set forth in the accompanying administrative order.

Effective January 31, 1972; amended effective July 1, 1975; amended February 19, 1982, effective April 1, 1982; amended May 18, 1988, effective August 1, 1988; amended November 21, 1988, effective January 1, 1989; amended and Commentary and Administrative Order adopted June 27, 1994, effective July 1, 1994; amended May 30, 2008, effective immediately; amended September 13, 2010, effective January 1, 2011; amended May 31, 2011, effective July 1, 2011.

M.R. No. 10343
(Amended October 4, 2011)

Under the general administrative and supervisory authority granted the Illinois Supreme Court over the courts of this state (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §16), the order entered under Supreme Court Rule 23, dated May 31, 2011, is amended as follows:

(A) Assignment of Public-Domain Case Designators

The Districts of the Illinois Appellate Court shall assign a public-domain case designator to those opinions filed on or after July 1, 2011. This designator number for an opinion must be unique to that opinion and shall include the year of decision, the court abbreviation, and an identifier number comprised of the final six digits of the docket number, or the final six digits of the initial docket number in a consolidated appeal, without use of the hyphen. In the case of opinions by the Workers’ Compensation Commission Division of the Appellate Court, the letters “WC” shall be added as a suffix. The public-domain identifier shall appear at top of the first page of an opinion and shall be in the following form:

[year] IL App (1st) [no.]

[year] IL App (2d) [no.]

[year] IL App (3d) [no.]

[year] IL App (4th) [no.]

[year] IL App (5th) [no.]

Workers’ Compensation Commission Division

2011 IL App ([dist.]) [no.]WC

By way of example, should the First District file an opinion in cause No. 1–10–1234 in 2011, the public-domain case designator will be “2011 IL App (1st) 101234.”

Where a second opinion is filed under the same docket number, such as upon reconsideration after remand, a capital letter “B” will be appended to the case-designator number, regardless of the year-designator portion of the citation:

2011 IL App (1st) 101159

2012 IL App (1st) 101159-B

Any further opinions arising from the same appeal shall be assigned an alphabetic letter consecutive to the preceding opinion.

However, where an opinion is withdrawn while jurisdiction has been retained by the issuing court, the new opinion or order in the matter shall be given the same case-designator number as the withdrawn opinion without the addition of a sequential alphabetic designator.

Orders filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) shall have the letter “U,” preceded by a hyphen, appended to the case-designator number:

2011 IL App (5th) 101160-U

A subsequently filed unpublished order in the same cause of action will result in use of both a “U” and an alphabetic designator:

2011 IL App (5th) 101160-UB

Use of the “U” designator for unpublished decisions and use of an alphabetic designator (“B,” “C,” etc.) for a subsequent opinion or order are independent elements of the case-designator number:

2011 IL App (5th) 101160-U [unpublished; initial decision]

2011 IL App (5th) 101160-B [published; decision after remand]

2011 IL App (5th) 101160-UC [unpublished; decision after second remand]

Should an unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 be converted to a published opinion, the “U” designation shall be deleted.

(B) Internal Paragraphing of Opinions

Illinois reviewing court opinions shall include internally numbered paragraphs as directed below. Use of internal paragraph numbers allows a pinpoint citation to the appropriate portions of an opinion when cited for a specific proposition. Such a citation will include the case name, the public-domain designator number, and the specific, or pinpoint, paragraph or paragraph numbers within the opinion:

People v. Doe, 2011 IL App (1st) 101157, ¶ 15

People v. Doe, 2011 IL App (1st) 101157, ¶¶ 21-23

People v. Doe, 2011 IL App (1st) 101157, ¶¶ 57, 68

Except for the materials denoted in paragraph below, each paragraph of text is to be numbered consecutively beginning after the heading “OPINION” or “ORDER” (including the lead-in line to a separate opinion and any joiner lines thereto).

(2) The numbering of paragraphs within a separate opinion shall be consecutive to the final paragraph number of the opinion that precedes it, beginning with the lead-in line to the separate opinion, as shown in the example below:

¶ 44 For the reason stated, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings.

¶ 45 Judgment reversed;
¶ 46 cause remanded.

¶ 47 JUSTICE DOE, dissenting:
¶ 48 Because I believe the circuit court correctly resolved the issues presented in the motion to suppress, I would affirm.
The following portions of an opinion do not constitute new paragraphs and shall not be numbered:

(a) indented (blocked) text, regardless of the nature material (e.g., quotation, listing of issues, etc.) or the length of the material;

(b) text immediately following indented text, unless such text begins a new paragraph;

(c) text within footnotes;

(d) appendices or other attachments.

If quoted text, including indented quotations, is derived from a source that uses numbered paragraphs under a public-domain system of citation, the numbers from the original source shall not be shown in the quoted material but in the citation only.

If a supplemental document is filed, the paragraph numbering in the original document shall be continued into the supplemental document, including any lead-in lines and document headings (e.g., “Supplemental Opinion”; “Dissent Upon Denial of Rehearing”).

Where revisions are made to an opinion following filing that result in the addition of a new paragraph or paragraphs, the new paragraph(s) shall be denoted by use of the paragraph number that preceded the new materials, plus the addition of consecutive, alphabetical letters (e.g., ¶ 11b, ¶ 11c, etc.)

Each paragraph number shall be shown using the paragraph symbol, followed by a space, and then the number (e.g., ¶ 1). The paragraph number is placed at the left margin, followed by a tab that indents the paragraphed text, as follows:

¶ 23 The appellate court found that Grant supported its conclusion that the designation of the NAF in the agreement to arbitrate was integral to the agreement. Specifically, citing Grant, the court noted:

“[The NAF] has a very specific set of rules and procedures that has implications for every aspect of the arbitration process.”

Thus the court found that section 5 of the Arbitration Act could not be used to reform the arbitration provision.

¶ 24 The defendant argues that the appellate court erroneously determined there is a split in federal case law as to the proper application of section 5 of the Act.

M.R. 10343

Order entered December 18, 2006.

In re Administrative Order No. M.R. 10343

On the court’s own motion, effective January 1, 2007, the administrative order entered in M.R. No. 10343, on June 27, 1994, is hereby vacated.

Order entered by the Court.

(June 27, 1994)

By this amendment, Rule 23 creates a presumption against disposing of Appellate Court cases by full, published opinions and authorizes a third type of disposition by summary order in select circumstances. The concept of the traditional “Rule 23 order” remains, but conciseness is encouraged. Disposition by order rather than by opinion reflects the precedential value of a case, not necessarily its merits.

Two of the criteria upon which a case could qualify for disposition by opinion and the preference for publishing cases which include concurring and/or dissenting opinions have been eliminated consistent with the presumption against publication.

o. Rule 23 Orders (Exception to Bluebook Rule 10.8.1)
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 addresses what is commonly called “unpublished opinions.” Under Rule 23, appellate court decisions may be expressed as (1) opinions, (2) written orders, or (3) summary orders. While opinions have precedential value, written orders and summary orders are “unpublished” and do not. Thus, you may not cite to written orders and summary orders unless you are citing to them “to support contentions of double jeopardy, res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case,” or to provide the reader with a fuller understanding of the history of a case.
While written and summary orders are not published, tables in the back of the Illinois Appellate Court Reports will include their titles, docket numbers, filing dates, and dispositions. When citing to a written order or summary order, you must state in a parenthetical that the order is an “unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23.” When citing to written orders or summary orders filed before July 1, 2011, you may cite to it one of two ways, as demonstrated by examples provided in the Manual’s Rule III(A)(15):
• To the tables of the Illinois Appellate Court Reports: People v. Castro, 127 Ill. App. 3d 1159 (1984) (table) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
• To the title, docket number, and filing date: People v. Castro, No. 1-83-2151 (1984) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
When citing to written orders or summary orders filed on or after July 1, 2011, you must cite to the public- domain designator:
• People v. Brown, 2011 IL App (5th) 090400-U (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23)
p. Short-form Case Citations (Exception to Bluebook Rule10.9)
The citation requirements when citing in short-form are virtually identical under the Bluebook and the Manual’s Rule III(A)(16). The only difference is that while the Bluebook instructs you to use the first party’s name when only using one party’s name in the shortened form, the Manual allows you to use either party’s name. Further, if a case is known popularly by a particular name, the Manual instructs you to use that name.
The format for citations to Illinois statutes looks considerably different than the format provided in the Bluebook’s Table 1. Under both section 5.04 of the Legislative Reference Bureau Act (25 ILCS 135/5.04 (West 2010)) and the Manual’s section III(B), citation to Illinois statutes must be formatted as follows: X ILCS Y/Z (West A). In this example, X equals the chapter number, ILCS stands for the Illinois Compiled
2 Schusse v. Pace Suburban Division of the Regional Transportation Authority, 334 Ill. App. 3d 960, 968 n.1 (2002) (stating that “an abstract cannot be relied upon as precedent”); Cochran v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 203 Ill. App. 3d 935, 937 (1990) (stating that “[t]he use of abstract opinions and Rule 23 orders as precedent consistently has been condemned by courts of review-condemnation so universal that no citation is required”); see also People v. Oetgen, 62 Ill. App. 3d 29, 35 (1978).
page10image31776 page10image31936 page10image32096
Statutes, Y equals the Act, Z equals the section number of that Act (together Y/Z is the section number in the chapter of the ILCS), West is the publisher, and A is the year of publication. Thus, a citation should look like this: 720 ILCS 5/7-1 (West 2010). Additional details are provided below.
1. Textual references
Rule III(B)(2) states that when referring to a statute in a textual sentence, you must refer to it by its full, official short title of the public act. The Manual provides the following examples:
Incorrect: Defendant was convicted under 720 ILCS 5/12-1.
Correct: Defendant was convicted under section 12-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/12-1 (West 2010)).
Once you have provided the full citation, you may shorten the short title (such as referring to “the Code”) as long as it is clear which act or code you are referring to, but you cannot use an acronym (such as “the IMDMA”).
When writing the words “appendix,” “article,” “chapter,” “division,” “part,” “paragraph,” and “section,” in a textual sentence, you must spell those words out. You can only abbreviate them if they are used as part of a citation, not as part of a textual sentence. If any of these words are used immediately before a number, then capitalize the word.
2. Quoting statutory sections
Per Rule III(B)(3), if you quote a statute, you must make sure not to include anything added by the publisher, such as section titles, footnotes, or statutory history.
3. Consecutive sections (Exception to Bluebook Rule 3.3)
Rule III(B)(4) allows you to use “et seq.” if you are citing to an entire act. Further, the rule instructs you to include all elements of the section number when citing a span of sections. To demonstrate this exception, the Manual provides this example:
Incorrect: 735 ILCS 5/2-615, -619 (West 2010).
Correct: 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2010).
4. Former Code (Pre-1993)
Illinois statutes were re-codified into the Illinois Compiled Statutes in 1993. Prior to that, statutes were codified in the Illinois Revised Statutes. Many older statutes which were in the Illinois Revised Statutes may not be in the current Illinois Compiled Statutes, due to amendment. If you are citing to such a statute, the Manual provides the following example for you to follow: Ill. Rev. Stat. 19xx, ch. 38, ¶ 7-5(a)(2), (3).
page11image21264 page11image21424 page11image21584 page11image21744
Max Ma on

Every dime on line thanks for info!!

March 1, 2017 § Leave a comment


Just look at all that money salaries over 100,000.00 in Will County Illinois 60433

March 1, 2017 § Leave a comment


Federal funding malfeasance by state actors Title IV grants ?

January 5, 2017 § Leave a comment

The times we look at what was done just has more meaning than we can understand how the level of funding fraud in interlaced so badly they just ignore it and pay it off and do it all over again .

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Leaders in our state Government category at Will County Pro-se.