§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

33 Cited authorities

  1. County of Sacramento v. Lewis

    523 U.S. 833 (1998)   Cited 8,693 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"

  2. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.

    511 U.S. 244 (1994)   Cited 3,796 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"

  3. Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A.

    544 U.S. 528 (2005)   Cited 1,157 times   18 Legal Analyses
    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

  4. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel

    524 U.S. 498 (1998)   Cited 556 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

  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. Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

    475 U.S. 211 (1986)   Cited 514 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding an economic impact must be "a necessary consequence of the . . . regulatory scheme" to constitute a taking

  7. Matter Allstate

    81 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 684 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "there is no conflict between New York and New Jersey law," and that even if there were a conflict, "New Jersey law [would] govern"

  8. 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

  9. Raynor v. Chrysler

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8183 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2011-11-15 In the Matter of Randy RAYNOR, Claimant, v. LANDMARK CHRYSLER et al., Appellants, et al., Respondent.Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. Hamberger & Weiss, Rochester (Karen Darling and Ronald E. Weiss of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven C. Wu, Barbara D. Underwood and Benjamin N. Gutman of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent. CIPARICK Hamberger & Weiss, Rochester (Karen Darling and Ronald E. Weiss of counsel)

  10. Swisher International v. Schafer

    550 F.3d 1046 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 79 times
    Rejecting a due process–based argument that a law "impose[d] retroactive liability that is disproportionate to [the petitioner's] participation in the ... program" because the law served legitimate legislative purposes and Congress chose rational means