I write separately to note that modern Restatements — such as the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (2010), which both opinions address in their discussions of the disgorgement remedy — are of questionable value, and must be used with caution. The object of the original Restatements was “to present an orderly statement of the general common law.” Restatement of Conflict of Laws, Introduction, p. viii (1934). Over time, the Restatements’ authors have abandoned the mission of describing the law, and have chosen instead to set forth their aspirations for what the law ought to be. Keyes, The Restatement (Second): Its Misleading Quality and a Proposal for Its Amelioration, 13 Pepp. L. Rev. 23, 24–25 (1985). Section 39 of the Third Restatement of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment is illustrative; as JUSTICE THOMAS notes, post, at 8 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), it constitutes a “‘novel extension’” of the law that finds little if any support in case law. Restatement sections such as that should be given no weight whatever as to the current state of the law, and no more weight regarding what the law ought to be than the recommendations of any respected lawyer or scholar. And it cannot safely be assumed, without further inquiry, that a Restatement provision describes rather than revises current law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#27390464)

Well done quote quote quote quote quote guy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#29226795)

The quality of legal education has plummeted due to red diaper babies crawling through the institutions. The Restatements are just one casualty.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#29225899)

I haven't seen a restatement reference since ls and I thought they were just used then to kind of briefly overview points like in a CLE review

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#27390543)

Restatements are frequently cited.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#27390570)

"to the extent there is no statutory authority or case law to the contrary, we adopt the national common law norms found in the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF PROPERTY: DONATIVE TRANSFERS (1986) (hereinafter "RESTATEMENT")." Edwards v. Urice, 2004 OK CIV APP 86, ¶ 12, 99 P.3d 256, 259.

"The rules of the common law, as expressed in the restatements of the law approved by the American Law Institute, and to the extent not so expressed, as generally understood and applied in the United States, shall be the rules of decision in the courts of the Virgin Islands in cases to which they apply, in the absence of local laws to the contrary." 1 Virgin Islands Code § 4.

"We have heretofore stated that we will follow the principles set forth in the American Law Institute's Restatement of the Law except in cases where a different rule has been laid down by this Court." Odekirk v. Austin, 90 Ariz. 97, 100, 366 P.2d 80, 81 (1961).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#27390723)

I do legal research for 10 hours, double my time, then cite the restatement when i cant find said case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#27394199)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#27390682)

"This Court, however, has never before relied on §39 nor adopted its proposed theory of disgorgement. And for good reason: It lacks support in the law. One reviewer of §39 has described it as a “novel extension” of restitution principles that “will alter the doctrinal landscape of contract law.” Roberts, Restitutionary Disgorgement for Opportunistic Breach of Contract and Mitigation of Damages, 42 Loyola (LA) L. Rev. 131, 134 (2008). And few courts have ever relied on §39."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#27390760)

is that bluebook convention, or just pointing out that it's a random ttt branch of jesus?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#27392691)

-Scalia

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#29225693)

*gets shitlib professor buddies to write articles praising my new restatement section*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2817571&forum_id=2#29225743)