(“[Sjince ... a written contract existed between the parties and there was no allegation of fraud or illegality, the trial court did not err in finding that [the] unjust enrichment claim failed.”); Struna v. Ohio Lottery Comm'n, No. 03AP-787, 2004 WL 2361570, at *5 ¶ 22 (Ohio Ct.App. 10th Dist. Oct. 21, 2004) (“The amount of money plaintiff was entitled to with respect to his 52 winning tickets, which is the subject matter of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, was governed by the terms of the contract between plaintiff and the Lottery Corn-mission. Consequently, the unjust enrichment doctrine has no application ....”), app. not allowed, 105 Ohio St.3d 1454, 823 N.E.2d 458 (Ohio 2005). 12 . See, e.g., Martinez v. Mueller, No. 266200, 2006 WL 1115534, at *2 (Mich.Ct.App. Apr.27, 2006) (<HOLDING>); Everton v. Williams, 270 Mich.App. 348, 715
holding that  1658 applies to claims arising out of the 1991 act holding that the first amendment right to free speech is absolute and an award of nominal damages is required even if the defendant fails to object to the nominal damages instruction holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict recognizing that health call overruled environair inc v steelcase inc 190 michapp 289 475 nw2d 366 1991 to the extent that environair is read as limiting recovery to nominal damages as a matter of law in all cases  arising out of or related to the termination of atwill contracts