Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.

Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"

Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A.

Holding that a substantive due process inquiry has "no proper place" in Takings doctrine, while distinguishing Nollan and Dolan as a special application of unconstitutional conditions doctrine for Takings

United States v. Virginia

Holding unconstitutional the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.

Holding that Missouri law, which follows the Restatement of Torts, creates cognizable property right in trade secrets

Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel

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

United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey

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"

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R. A. Gray Co.

Holding that retroactive aspects of legislation must satisfy due process, a burden "met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose"

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.

Holding that limitation can be rational even if it only partially ameliorates perceived evil

Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.

Holding that black lung compensation scheme satisfied due process because it was a "rational measure to spread the costs of the employee's disabilities to those who have profited from the fruits of their labor"

Section 10 - Liability for compensation