Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Dear RDG Friends.

As many of you are probably aware, in the past several years, descendants of African-American slaves have attempted to bring private rights of action for restitution/unjust enrichment against a variety of successors of civil war era corporate interests. Not surprisingly, these cases have not progressed very far, and were eventually dismissed. See, In re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation, 375 F. Supp.2d 721 (N.D. Ill. 2004), aff'd, 471 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2006) (Posner, J.)

By and large the courts have not engaged in the substance of the restitution claim, and have preferred to rejected the claims on procedural grounds relating to the limitations of federal jurisdiction and the doctrine of standing. And while standing is often another way to frame the substantive claim, I find it relevant that nearly all the precedents and analysis focus in on questions of federal jurisdiction rather than unjust enrichment. Stated simply, these cases are conceptualized as raising procedural rather than substantive issues.

My question is whether there are any cases regarding what some have called "restitution for historic wrongs" or similar situations in the English/Commonwealth courts? I am not so much interested in whether the claims succeed (though if they do its certainly noteworthy) but more about how they are conceptualized. My intuition is that such claims are far more likely to be litigated in terms of the merits of the restitution claim that the proceduralist tones of the American courts.

Any relevant cases/examples would be most welcomed.

[if any of you have ideas from other areas of restitution, such examples would also be welcomed].

Thank you,
Chaim Saiman

Chaim Saiman
Assistant Professor
Villanova Law School
610.519.3296
http://ssrn.com/author=549545