Legal Concepts in Injunctions and Trials

Damages the defendant agrees to pay, in this case, $8794, for funeral, medical expenses, and car damage.

Calculating medical expenses involves determining the "reasonable value" of the medical services needed to treat the injuries.

A legal rule preventing evidence of compensation (e.g., insurance) received by the injured party from outside sources (like their insurance) from influencing the amount of damages awarded.

Many states have modified the common law collateral source rule, altering how medical insurance payments are handled in damage calculations.

The fair market price for the medical services rendered, not necessarily the amount billed.

A 2016 Indiana Supreme Court case that addressed the valuation of medical damages, considering the medical provider's accepted compensation amount.

The court determined the total value of a person's life to be $1,083,000.

The court awarded $1,350,000, comprising the value of a life including medical treatment and funeral expenses.

Steps a plaintiff takes to reduce damages caused by a defendant's negligence.

The plaintiff's duty to lessen damages caused by the defendant's actions.

A common law rule preventing recovery of economic damages in negligence cases absent physical injury or property damage.

Financial losses not directly a result of physical injury or property damage.

A defense in negligence where the plaintiff's actions are a contributing factor to the harm.

A defense in negligence where the plaintiff and defendant are compared with each other in fault for the harm.

A defense that argues the plaintiff knowingly and willingly accepted the risk of harm.

A defense in negligence that allows the defendant to avoid liability if they were the last party to have a reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm.

A court order to stop someone from doing something outside of the court's jurisdiction (usually in another country).

A factor courts consider when deciding if an extraterritorial injunction is appropriate. The act must significantly impact US trade.

Courts consider if an extraterritorial injunction would interfere with trademark rules in another country.

To bring assets back to the original country (usually due to a court order).

A court's power to hear a case involving a specific person or company.

Guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the amount at stake is over $20.

A court order to stop someone from doing something, rather than awarding money damages.

A Supreme Court case that clarified the right to a jury trial in cases involving both money damages and injunctive relief.

A legal principle that prevents one party from unfairly benefiting at the expense of another due to a mistake or unintentional error.

A legal fiction created by a court to prevent unjust enrichment by requiring a defendant who unjustly gained an asset to hold it for the benefit of the rightful owner.

The process of identifying a particular asset that belonged to the plaintiff and ended up in the defendant's possession due to unjust enrichment.

Errors in applying legal principles like contracts, equity, or torts when determining restitution.

A court-imposed obligation to act fairly even without a formal agreement, based on the premise that a person should not be unjustly enriched by benefiting from another's actions.

The principle that a court of equity can only act against a specific person (the defendant), not against their property.

The interchangeable use of legal terms like 'legal restitution,' 'general assumpsit,' 'indebitatus assumpsit,' 'quasi-contract,' and 'contract implied in law,' all referring to the same legal concept.

A case that involved the application of unjust enrichment principles to resolve a dispute over a crop that was planted by the plaintiff on the defendant's land.

A legal concept that creates a fictional contract when there's no actual agreement, but one party unjustly benefits at the expense of the other.

A benefit given by someone without the recipient's consent or request. This is usually not grounds for a quasi-contract.

A benefit that the recipient knowingly and willingly receives, often a key element for unjust enrichment claims.

A legal remedy where someone is required to return a benefit they unjustly received.

An unfair situation where someone gets paid twice for the same thing.

A legal relationship between parties to a contract.

A set of principles that guide courts when applying fairness and justice in legal decisions.

When an original asset (trust res) is replaced with a different asset, but the plaintiff's equitable interest in the original asset continues.

A case where the court found that a substitution of life insurance policies did not defeat the equitable interest of the promised beneficiary.

The test for constructive trust is based on the conscience of equity, meaning the court will use it to ensure fairness.

The plaintiff can capture appreciation, recover even if defendant's debts exceed assets, and recover heirlooms (not just money).

The court in Rogers v. Rogers found that the 'all the more evident' language wasn't essential, extending Simonds to situations without such express provisions.

The promise's interest in the original asset (life insurance policy) continues even after the policy changes.