green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
15.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…he primary consideration in determining whether the impairment is substantial is the extent to which reasonable expectations under the contract have been disrupted.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
stc.unm v. Intel Corporation
s a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cloutier v. State
(2×)
he primary consideration in determining whether the impairment is substantial is the extent to which reasonable expectations under the contract have been disrupted.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. v. Elia
Three questions must be considered to determine whether a state law violates the Contract Clause: "(1) is the contractual impairment substantial and, if so, (2) does the law serve a legitimate public purpose such as remedying a general social or economic problem and, if such purpose is demonstrated, (3) are the means chosen to accomplish this purpose reasonable and necessary" ( Buffalo Teachers Fedn. v Tobe , 464 F3d 362 , 368 [2006], cert denied 550 US 918 [2007]; see Sal Tinnerello & Sons, Inc. v Town of Stonington , 141 F3d 46, 52 [1998], cert denied 525 US 923 [1998]; 19th St.
discussed
Cited "see"
Healthnow New York Inc. v. New York State Insurance Depatment
Assoc. v State of New York, 79 NY2d 434, 442 [1992] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Sal Tinnerello & Sons, Inc. v Town of Stonington, 141 F3d 46, 52 [2d Cir 1998], cert denied 525 US 923 [1998]; Schantz v O’Sullivan, 11 AD3d 22, 24 [2004], appeal dismissed 3 NY3d 767 [2004]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Healthnow New York Inc. v. New York State Insurance Depatment
Assoc. v State of New York, 79 NY2d 434, 442 [1992] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Sal Tinnerello & Sons, Inc. v Town of Stonington, 141 F3d 46, 52 [2d Cir 1998], cert denied 525 US 923 [1998]; Schantz v O’Sullivan, 11 AD3d 22, 24 [2004], appeal dismissed 3 NY3d 767 [2004]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Crabtree
Accord Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed.Cir.) (stating that “one does not qualify as a joint inventor by merely assisting the actual inventor after conception of the claimed invention”), cert. denied 525 U.S. 923 , 119 S.Ct. 278 , 142 L.Ed.2d 229 (1998); Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1230-31 (Fed.Cir.1994) (finding that the running of tests to confirm an idea is not conception), ce rt. denied, 516 U.S. 1070 , 116 S.Ct. 771 , 133 L.Ed.2d 724 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Ottawa Plant Food, Inc.
See Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1466 (Fed.Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 923 , 119 S.Ct. 278 , 142 L.Ed.2d 229 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Walcek v. United States
See Dodd v. Hood River County, 136 F.3d 1219, 1230 (9th Cir.1998), cert. denied, mot. granted, 525 U.S. 923 , 119 S.Ct. 278 , 142 L.Ed.2d 229 (1998) (holding that plaintiffs’ investment-backed expectations to build their home in a Forest Use Zone were unreasonable since the regulations were in effect when plaintiffs purchased the property).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dodd et ux.
v.
Hood River County
v.
Hood River County
No. 98-54.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1998.
525 U.S. 923
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of New Hampshire (2) · Federal Circuit (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Hans Hoeck for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.