Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that “[i]n the employment context, there likely is no right. . . more central to the contract’s inducement” than the right to compensation, and holding that salary reductions constituted a substantial impairment
• “It should not be wholly unexpected, therefore, that these public servants might well be called upon to sacrifice first when the public interest demands sacrifice.”
• “Only if the employees’ salaries were subject to unilateral adjustment by the City under the terms of the contract could it possibly be concluded [that there was no impairment of the contracts at issue].”
• “While the Court has not refined the analysis for assessing the substantiality of an impairment, it has appeared to assume that an impairment is substantial at least where the right abridged was one that induced the parties to contract in the first place”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).