or equitable. Defendant maintains in this regard that a governmental action for recovery of environmental cleanup costs is most analogous to a common-law action in quasi-contract, which it argues was traditionally tried at law, while the State argues that its claim is analogous to one for restitution, public nuisance, or equitable subrogation, all purportedly equitable claims tried to a court rather than a jury. Acknowledging the greater importance of the second inquiry, however, the State argues strenuously that recovery of environmental investigation and response costs incurred by the State represents a restitutionary remedy for the return of money expended on defendant’s behalf, relief traditionally characterized as equitable in nature. See Gorton, 167 Vt. at 365, 706 A.2d at 952 (<HOLDING>); see generally 1 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies
holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract holding that damage claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred in performance of oral agreement was more accurately a request for restitution to return them to their former position and therefore it is  an equitable remedy holding that there was no meeting of the minds as to expenses in the parties contingency fee contract and therefore the attorneys claim for reimbursement of litigation expenses was rejected holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid