Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge
For Story, the state must expressly suggest a contract is not exclusive.
Court case: Sveen v. Melin
The Court only considers the first question in the test because there is no impairment here.
Court case: Stone v. Mississippi
The people may resume the lottery system at any time.
Court case: Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell
The Court’s precedents argue that contracts affect more than the parties involved in them.
Court case: Fletcher v. Peck
Rescinding the law here would be
an ex post fact law.
a legitimate decision.
within the bounds of federalism.
none of these
Court case: Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
Contracts must be understood in a limited sense.
In contracts, nothing can be left to implication.
Emergencies can and sometimes do lead to exercise of state power.
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
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.
There is an exclusive privilege to the Charles River Bridge.
The Court finds that
no emergency existed here.
the government exceeded its authority.
an emergency existed here.
Not laws affecting pre-existing contracts violate the Clause.
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.
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.
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 is restrained here from passing the law that would rescind the contract.
The incorporation here
was meant to be limited.
was meant to be rescinded when the Constitution was ratified.
was meant to last forever.
Gorsuch, in dissent, agrees that there are no impairments here but dissents anyway.
Whether a contract exists depends on the authority of the legislature to bind the state and the people in that way.
The rights of third parties must be disregarded in a contract.
Lotteries are proper subjects of states’ police powers.
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.
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 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.
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.
The contract here can be impaired without violating the Constitution.
Georgia must follow the constitution as a state government.
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.
