Carlstrom v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding unanimously that a state statute canceling teachers' contractual salary increases violated the Contract Clause because it was not reasonable
• holding unanimously that a state statute canceling teachers’ contractual salary increases violated the Contract Clause because it was not reasonable
• holding a reservation clause unenforceable because it was not specific enough and reasoning that “[t]he Legislature knows how to use plain English to make existing contracts subject to future modification”
• holding a reservation clause unenforceable because it was not specific enough and reasoning that \[t]he Legislature 14 No. 88546-0 knows how to use plain English to make existing contracts subject to future modification\
• deferring salary increase based upon economic emergency was a substantial impairment of the contract when the State was aware of its financial problems while negotiating the employment contract making the change one in degree not in kind.
• trial court's error in applying arbitrary and capricious test to find that plaintiffs' constitutional rights not violated held harmless where no due process hearing was required in first place

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).