28 Cited authorities

  1. United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey

    431 U.S. 1 (1977)   Cited 963 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"
  2. Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power Light

    459 U.S. 400 (1983)   Cited 735 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that impairment of contract was not substantial where the parties to the contract were "operating in a heavily regulated industry"
  3. General Motors Corp. v. Romein

    503 U.S. 181 (1992)   Cited 489 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding there was no contractual relationship regarding the statutory terms at issue, and therefore no violation of the Contract Clause
  4. Alabama v. North Carolina

    560 U.S. 330 (2010)   Cited 121 times
    In Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010), the Court stated that the parties' course of performance under the interstate compact at issue was "highly significant."
  5. Pacific Gas E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage Etc. Co.

    69 Cal.2d 33 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 806 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that credible extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine whether a contract term is susceptible to more than one meaning and, hence, ambiguous
  6. Kansas v. Colorado

    514 U.S. 673 (1995)   Cited 86 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "laches requires proof of lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted, and prejudice to the party asserting the defense."
  7. Tarrant Reg'l Water Dist. v. Herrmann

    569 U.S. 614 (2013)   Cited 38 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that because many compacts unambiguously permit signatory States to cross each other's borders to fulfill obligations under the compact, the absence of such a provision in the Red River Compact "strongly suggests that the cross-border rights were never intended to be part of the States' agreement"
  8. U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n

    434 U.S. 452 (1978)   Cited 94 times
    Holding that the Multistate Tax Compact did not "enhance state power" with respect to the federal government and therefore did not require congressional consent
  9. Texas v. New Mexico

    462 U.S. 554 (1983)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that, upon approval by Congress, a compact between states becomes federal law that binds the states
  10. New Jersey v. State of Delaware

    552 U.S. 597 (2008)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that Delaware's CMP contains an LNG terminal ban approved in 1979