Al-Ibrahim v. Edde
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
897 F. Supp. 620 (1995)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
George Edde (plaintiff) was employed by Sheikh Abdulaziz Bin Ibrahim Al-Ibrahim (defendant). As part of his employment, Edde accompanied the Sheikh to casinos in the United States and, at the Sheikh’s direction, claimed the Sheikh’s gambling winnings as his own. This allowed the Sheik to avoid United States taxes on the earnings he retained. Edde was aware that claiming the Sheikh’s winnings was illegal. Edde stated that claiming the winnings was a condition of his employment but did not provide evidence the Sheikh threatened to terminate him if he refused. After Edde left the Sheikh’s employ, he reached a deal with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to pay the taxes due on the winnings. Edde did not inform the IRS that the winnings were earned and retained by the Sheikh. Edde testified he had an oral contract with the Sheikh pursuant to which the Sheikh was required to reimburse Edde for the taxes paid on the winnings. When the Sheikh refused to reimburse Edde, Edde sued for breach of contract and for restitution of the $400,000 he paid to the IRS, arguing that the Sheikh was comparatively more culpable and that he should not be unjustly enriched by his actions. The Sheikh moved to dismiss, arguing that Edde could not enforce an illegal contract.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Friedman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.