green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Colt Industries, Inc. v. Fidelco Pump & Compressor Corp.
See Globe Liquor Co. v. Four Roses Distillers Co., 281 A.2d 19 (Del.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 873 , 92 S.Ct. 103 , 30 L.Ed.2d 117 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
E. S. Bills, Inc. v. Tzucanow
(2×)
Although the weight of authority is against the permissibility of retroactive application (e.g., Mobil Oil Corp. v. Handley (1978) 76 Cal. App.3d 956, 964-965 [ 143 Cal. Rptr. 321 ]; accord, Globe Liquor Co. v. Four Roses Distillers Company (Del. 1971) 281 A.2d 19, 21 , cert. den., 404 U.S. 873 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 117 , 92 S.Ct. 103 ]), better reasoned analysis would allow such application, at least in some situations ( Good Cause Termination Requirement, supra, 13 *837 U.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Monks v. United States Parole Commission
(2×)
See Alesi v. Cramer, 440 F.2d 975, 977 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 856 , 92 S.Ct. 103 , 30 L.Ed.2d 97 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grant v. Nellius
See, for example, Globe Liquor Co. v. Four Roses Distillers Company, Del.Supr., 281 A.2d 19, 21 (1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 873 , 92 S.Ct. 103 , 30 L.Ed.2d 117 (1971) holding the Delaware Franchise Se- *357 eurity Law, as applied to the agreement under consideration, to be in violation of the Contract Clause; and Opinion of the Justices, Del.Supr., 283 A.2d 832, 834 (1971), advising the Governor that a Delaware statute providing for arbitration of cancellation of insurance contracts violated Article I, § 10. 5 And we have recently held that the Contract Clause prohibited the General Assemb…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bill Call Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
See also Globe Liquor Co. v. Four Roses Distillers Co., 281 A.2d 19, 20-21 (Del.Supr.1971), cer t. denied, 404 U.S. 873 , 92 S.Ct. 103 , 30 L.Ed.2d 117 (1971) ("The effect of the Delaware Franchise Security Law is to transform the contract ... from one providing for a period of one year with no right of renewal ... to a contract to extend into the indefinite future which the [franchisor] may terminate only upon certain conditions and at its peril____ It is therefore not a minor change or infringement permissible under the exercise of the police power.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Allen
v.
Bankers Trust Co.
v.
Bankers Trust Co.
No. 71-149.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1971.
Cited by 15 opinions | Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.