How cited: National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Go Syfert

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1985)

green · 1,731 citation events across 125 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198520052026
Quote Authority · 1st Cir. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 , 105 S.Ct. 1441, 1451-52 , 84 L.Ed.2d 432 (1985) (“[AJbsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that ‘a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the legislature shall ordain otherwise.’ ”).
“[AJbsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that ‘a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the legislature shall ordain otherwise.’ ”
Rule Authority · 2d Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466 (1985) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ., 302 U.S. 74, 79 (1937)).
quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ., 302 U.S. 74, 79 (1937)
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 454 (1985) (observing “Congress established the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a private, for-profit corporation that has come to be known as Amtrak”).
observing “Congress established the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a private, for-profit corporation that has come to be known as Amtrak”
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 454 (1985) (observing “Congress established the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a private, for-profit corporation that has come to be known as Amtrak”).
observing “Congress established the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a private, for-profit corporation that has come to be known as Amtrak”
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466 (1985) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 302 U.S. 74, 78 (1937)).
quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 302 U.S. 74, 78 (1937)
Rule Authority · D.C. Cir.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 454 (1985), “not a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government,” 49 U.S.C. § 24301 (a)(3).
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466 (1985)).
Quote Authority · 7th Cir.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 , 105 S.Ct. 1441 , 84 L.Ed.2d 432 (1985) ("[A]bsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that a 'law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the legislature shall ordain otherwise.' ") (citations omitted). 9 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. * After an examination of the briefs and record, we…
"[A]bsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that a 'law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the legislature shall ordain otherwise.' "
Rule Authority · N.J. · 10 citations in this opinion
Rule Authority · N.H. · 9 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466 (1985)); see also Am.
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App. · 4 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U. S. 451, 466 (II) (A) ( 105 SCt 1441 , 84 LE2d 432) (1985).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl. · 3 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl. · 3 citations in this opinion
Id. at 468-69 (determining that the Government would not have “shed this vitally important governmental power with so little concern for what it would receive in exchange”).
determining that the Government would not have “shed this vitally important governmental power with so little concern for what it would receive in exchange”
Quote Authority · Ct. Cl. · 3 citations in this opinion
Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 470 U.S. 451, 466 , 105 S.Ct. 1441, 1451 , 84 L.Ed.2d 432 (1985) (“[T]he principal function for the legislature is not to make contracts, but to make laws that establish the policy of the state.”).
“[T]he principal function for the legislature is not to make contracts, but to make laws that establish the policy of the state.”
Quote Authority · N.D. Tex. · 3 citations in this opinion
Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka Co., 470 U.S. 451 , 105 S.Ct. 1441, 1457 , 84 L.Ed.2d 432 (1985) (“Under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, Congress remained free to ‘adjust the burdens and benefits of economic life,’ as long as it did so in a manner that was neither arbitrary nor irrational, [citations omitted]”).
“Under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, Congress remained free to ‘adjust the burdens and benefits of economic life,’ as long as it did so in a manner that was neither arbitrary nor irrational, [citations omitted]”
Rule Authority · E.D. Mo. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 454 (1985).
green Boyd v. United States (2023)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985)).
Rule Authority · N.C. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466 (1985)).
Rule Authority · N.C. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466 (1985)).
Rule Authority · E.D.N.C. · 2 citations in this opinion
Passenger Corp. v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985).
Rule Authority · D. Maryland · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466 (1985) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 302 U.S. 74, 78 (1937)); see also Indiana ex rel.
quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 302 U.S. 74, 78 (1937)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ill. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 454 (1985).
Rule Authority · Wis. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985).
Quote Authority · Ariz. · 2 citations in this opinion
Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa, Fe Ry., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 , 105 S.Ct. 1441 , 84 L.Ed.2d 432 (1985) (“[Ajbsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that ‘a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the legislature shall ordain otherwise.’ ”) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ., 302 U.S. 74, 79 , 58 S.Ct. 98 , 82 L.Ed. 57 (1937)); …
“[Ajbsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that ‘a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the legislature shall ordain otherwise.’ ”
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 473, n.27 (1985)).
Rule Authority · Fla.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466-67 (1985) (“[A]bsent an adequate expression of an actual intent of the State to bind itself, this Court simply will not lightly construe that which is undoubtedly a scheme of public regulation to be, in addition, a private contract to which the State is a party.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)).
green White v. United States (2025)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
Rule Authority · D. Maryland
Jd. at 150 (quoting Atchison, 470 U.S. at 466, 470 ).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985))), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Co., 470 U.S. at 466 (emphasis in original) (quoting Indiana ex rel.
emphasis in original
green VEPCO v. SCC (2021)
Rule Authority · Va.
Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 470 U.S. 451, 469 (1985); Energy Rsrvs.
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985)).
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 451 (1985).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Co., 470 U.S. 451,465-66 (1985) (noting that statutes do not create contractual rights absent a clear indication of intent).
noting that statutes do not create contractual rights absent a clear indication of intent
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985) (citations omitted) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ., 302 U.S. 74, 79 (1937)); accord Moda 21 The difference between unilateral and bilateral contracts was explained in the Restatement (First) of Contracts: “A unilateral contract is one in which no promisor receives a promise as consideration for his promise.
citations omitted
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985) (citations omitted) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ., 302 U.S. 74, 79 (1937)); accord Moda Health Plan, 892 F.3d at 1329 ; Brooks v. Dunlop Mfg.
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985) (citations omitted) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ., 302 U.S. 74, 79 (1937)); accord Moda Health Plan, 892 F.3d at 1329 ; Brooks v. Dunlop Mfg.
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Co., 470 U.S. 451,465-66 (1985) ("[A]bsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that'a law is not intended to create private contactw or vested rights but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the legislature shall ordain otherwise.' This well- established presumption is grounded in the elementary proposition that the principal function of a legislature is not to make contracts, but to make laws that estab…
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 (1985)); Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States, 130 Fed.
Quote Authority · Fed. Cl.
Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 470 U.S. 451, 467 (1985) (“Legislation outlining the terms on which . . . parties may execute contracts does not on its own constitute a statutory contract, but is instead an articulated policy that, like all statutory policies, is subject to revision or repeal.”).
“Legislation outlining the terms on which . . . parties may execute contracts does not on its own constitute a statutory contract, but is instead an articulated policy that, like all statutory policies, is subject to revision or repeal.”
Rule Authority · N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
requiring courts adjudicating Federal Contracts Clause claims not presume that a statute creates private contract rights unless "some clear indication" establishes the intent to do so
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466 (1985)).
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466 (1985)).
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Passenger Corp., the Supreme Court found “absolutely no congressional intention” to have the United States enter into private contractual agreement with railroads where the Act did not explicitly speak of a contract between the United States and the railroads, and “did not in any respect provide for the execution of a written contract on behalf of the United States.” Id at 467, 105 S.Ct. 1441 (emphasis in original).
green NCAE v. State (2016)
Rule Authority · N.C.
Rule Authority · Ill.
Co., 470 U.S. 451, 466 (1985).
Quote Authority · Ariz.
Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 470 U.S. 451, 465-66 , 105 S.Ct. 1441 , 84 L.Ed.2d 432 (1985) ("[A]bsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that `a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the legislature shall ordain otherwise.'") (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Educ., 302 U.S. 74, 79 , 58 S.Ct. 98 , 82 L.Ed. 57 (1937)); US…
"[A]bsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that `a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the legislature shall ordain otherwise.'"