§Why CasetextPricing

American Economy Insurance Company, et al., Respondents,v.State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Brief

29 Cited authorities

  1. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.

    511 U.S. 244 (1994)   Cited 3,799 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"

  2. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

    68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 21,214 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

  3. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel

    524 U.S. 498 (1998)   Cited 557 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that levying Coal Act premiums on a pre-1978 signatory operator was an unconstitutional taking because the operator never agreed to provide lifetime benefits to its retirees

  4. United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey

    431 U.S. 1 (1977)   Cited 1,025 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a contractual impairment unreasonable in part because for "over a half century" "the need for mass transportation in the New York metropolitan area was not a new development, and the likelihood that publicly owned commuter railroads would produce substantial deficits was well known"

  5. Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power Light

    459 U.S. 400 (1983)   Cited 829 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state law regulating intrastate price of natural gas did not substantially impair private party's contract rights because industry was heavily regulated and company had no reasonable expectation of receiving windfall from deregulated prices

  6. General Motors Corp. v. Romein

    503 U.S. 181 (1992)   Cited 545 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding there was no contractual relationship regarding the statutory terms at issue, and therefore no violation of the Contract Clause

  7. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 5,995 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that provision prohibited assignments when the provision stated, in part, that "neither party hereto shall assign this agreement . . . without the prior written consent of the other party," and "that [defendant] shall not be required to recognize any assignments; and that if [defendant] shall receive notice of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"

  8. Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Gillette Co.

    64 N.Y.2d 304 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 730 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that policy exclusions "are not to be extended by interpretation or implication but are to be accorded a strict and narrow construction" and that any ambiguity will be resolved against the insurer

  9. Voss v. Neth. Ins. Co.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1259 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 247 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Voss, the plaintiff asked the defendant whether an insurance policy with $75,000 in business interruption coverage would be sufficient, and the defendant “allegedly assured her that it would suffice.

  10. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. U.S.

    271 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 120 times
    Holding that a congressional imposition of an obligation to pay money does not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property, in a case challenging the special monetary assessments on domestic utilities for remediation of environmentally contaminated uranium processing facilities, the court rejected a Takings Clause challenge to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, citing Eastern Enterprises as well as previous Federal Circuit precedent