Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge
If the Charles Company is entitled to relief,
it must only point to the contract here.
it must prove that the legislature meant to keep it the exclusive bridge.
it must pay for the privilege.
all of these
Court case: Sveen v. Melin
Not laws affecting pre-existing contracts violate the Clause.
Court case: Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell
The Court finds that
no emergency existed here.
the government exceeded its authority.
an emergency existed here.
none of these
Court case: Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
The incorporation here
was meant to be limited.
was meant to be rescinded when the Constitution was ratified.
was meant to last forever.
Court case: Stone v. Mississippi
The power to govern is
the trust committed to the people of the government.
the trust given by the federal government.
the trust given by the state constitution.
There is an exclusive privilege to the Charles River Bridge.
The Court only considers the first question in the test because there is no impairment here.
In contracts, nothing can be left to implication.
Contracts must be understood in a limited sense.
The Constitutional Convention
was clear about the construction of the contract clause.
was unclear about the construction of the contract clause.
was clear about when emergencies exist in the U.S.
The Court knows that the state’s police power extends to
anything the legislature chooses.
only those issues laid out in the Constitution
nothing because of the 10th Amendment.
all matters affecting public health or morals.
The first question here is
whether the state has any power at all.
whether the contract is fair.
whether the state added a substantial impairment to the contract.
Whether a contract exists depends on the authority of the legislature to bind the state and the people in that way.
Lotteries are proper subjects of states’ police powers.
Court case: Fletcher v. Peck
A repeal of a law
may divest the right of contact.
may change the terms of a contract.
may not divest the right of contract.
The contract here can be impaired without violating the Constitution.
If travel is left to one corporation
the contract clause will be rejected by the Constitution.
the state will be perfectly fine.
the interests of the people will be harmed.
The people may resume the lottery system at any time.
For Story, the state must expressly suggest a contract is not exclusive.
Rescinding the law here would be
an ex post fact law.
a legitimate decision.
within the bounds of federalism.
It is difficult for the state to make its case because
Dartmouth is a public school.
Dartmouth is a private school.
Dartmouth is chartered by England.
Georgia must follow the constitution as a state government.
Emergencies can and sometimes do lead to exercise of state power.
The rights of third parties must be disregarded in a contract.
Georgia is restrained here from passing the law that would rescind the contract.
The law is invalid because it usurps the will of the college for the will of the state.
The end here was legitimate given the circumstances of the day.
Why is there no impairment in the contract here?
The law generally furthers policy holder’s intent.
The law will generally not upset the policy holder’s expectations.
The policy holder can change the contract with the stroke of a pen.
Gorsuch, in dissent, agrees that there are no impairments here but dissents anyway.
The Court’s precedents argue that contracts affect more than the parties involved in them.
