Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of El Paso v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences1983(City of El Paso v. Simmons (1965) 379 U.S. 497 , 508 . . .; Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell [1934] 290 U.S. [398,] 428-429, 434-435 . . . .) The contract clause and the principle of continuing governmental power are construed in harmony; although not permitting a construction which permits contract repudiation or destruction, the impairment provision does not prevent laws which restrict a party to the gains ‘reasonably to be expected from the contract.’ (City of El Paso v. Simmons, supra, 379 U.S. at p. 515 . . . .) Constitutional decisions ‘have never given a law which imposes unfore 1983(City of El Paso v. Simmons (1965) 379 U.S. 497 , 508 . . .; Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell [1934] 290 U.S. [398,] 428-429, 434-435 . . . .) The contract clause and the principle of continuing governmental power are construed in harmony; although not permitting a construction which permits contract repudiation or destruction, the impairment provision does not prevent laws which restrict a party to the gains ‘reasonably to be expected from the contract.’ (City of El Paso v. Simmons, supra, 379 U.S. at p. 515 . . . .) Constitutional decisions ‘have never given a law which imposes unfore | 2 | 3 |
Torres v. City of Montebellogreen1 sentence2016(See Torres v. City of Montebello, supra. 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 403 [mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of an act that is illegal or contrary to public policy].) | 1 | 1 |
Board of Administration v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2007(Board of Administration v. Wilson (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1130 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 ].) “An attempt must be made ‘to reconcile the strictures of the Contract Clause with the “essential attributes of sovereign power [citation].” (Allen v. Board of Administration, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 119 .) “ ‘The contract clause and the principle of continuing governmental power are construed in harmony; although not permitting a constmction which permits contract repudiation or destruction, the impairment provision does not prevent laws which restrict a party to the gains “reasonably to be expected fro 2007(Board of Administration v. Wilson (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1130 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 ].) “An attempt must be made ‘to reconcile the strictures of the Contract Clause with the “essential attributes of sovereign power [citation].” (Allen v. Board of Administration, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 119 .) “ ‘The contract clause and the principle of continuing governmental power are construed in harmony; although not permitting a constmction which permits contract repudiation or destruction, the impairment provision does not prevent laws which restrict a party to the gains “reasonably to be expected fro | 1 | 1 |
Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdellgreen2 sentences1992Thus, “the impairment provision does not prevent laws which restrict a party to the gains ‘reasonably to be expected from the contract.’ Constitutional decisions ‘have never given a law which imposes unforeseen advantages or burdens on a contracting party constitutional immunity against change.’ ” (Lyon v. Flournoy, supra, 271 Cal.App.2d at p. 782 , citation omitted.) And, “the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order.” (Home Building & Loan Asso. v. Blaisdell (1934) 290 U.S. 398, 435 [ 78 L.Ed. 413, 427 , 54 S.Ct. 231 1992Thus, “the impairment provision does not prevent laws which restrict a party to the gains ‘reasonably to be expected from the contract.’ Constitutional decisions ‘have never given a law which imposes unforeseen advantages or burdens on a contracting party constitutional immunity against change.’ ” (Lyon v. Flournoy, supra, 271 Cal.App.2d at p. 782 , citation omitted.) And, “the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order.” (Home Building & Loan Asso. v. Blaisdell (1934) 290 U.S. 398, 435 [ 78 L.Ed. 413, 427 , 54 S.Ct. 231 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Board of Administration
green
2 sentences2016(See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(eK1 )(B). 8.1115(e).) 7 As explained in Allen v. Board of Administration, supra. 34 Cal.3d at p. 120 , “ ‘The contract clause and the principle of continuing governmental power [must be] construed in harmony; although not permitting a construction which permits contract repudiation or destruction, the impairment provision does not prevent laws which restrict a party to the gains “reasonably to be expected from the contract.” [Citation.] Constitutional decisions "’have never given a law which imposes unforeseen advantages or burdens on a contracting party 2007(Board of Administration v. Wilson (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1130 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 ].) “An attempt must be made ‘to reconcile the strictures of the Contract Clause with the “essential attributes of sovereign power [citation].” (Allen v. Board of Administration, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 119 .) “ ‘The contract clause and the principle of continuing governmental power are construed in harmony; although not permitting a constmction which permits contract repudiation or destruction, the impairment provision does not prevent laws which restrict a party to the gains “reasonably to be expected fro | 2 | 2007–2016 |
Valdes v. Cory
green
1 sentence2007(Board of Administration v. Wilson (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1130 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 ].) “An attempt must be made ‘to reconcile the strictures of the Contract Clause with the “essential attributes of sovereign power [citation].” (Allen v. Board of Administration, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 119 .) “ ‘The contract clause and the principle of continuing governmental power are construed in harmony; although not permitting a constmction which permits contract repudiation or destruction, the impairment provision does not prevent laws which restrict a party to the gains “reasonably to be expected fro | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Lyon v. Flournoy
green
1 sentence1992Thus, “the impairment provision does not prevent laws which restrict a party to the gains ‘reasonably to be expected from the contract.’ Constitutional decisions ‘have never given a law which imposes unforeseen advantages or burdens on a contracting party constitutional immunity against change.’ ” (Lyon v. Flournoy, supra, 271 Cal.App.2d at p. 782 , citation omitted.) And, “the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order.” (Home Building & Loan Asso. v. Blaisdell (1934) 290 U.S. 398, 435 [ 78 L.Ed. 413, 427 , 54 S.Ct. 231 | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.