Chun v. Burroughs

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that cases followed the lead of Omnia Commercial Co., Inc. v. United States, 261 U.S. 502, 510, 43 S.Ct. 437, 67 L.Ed. 773 (1923
• applying test to lost profits claim where the Farmers’ Home Administration allegedly breached low interest loan agreements by restricting Plaintiffs’ right of prepayment
• “During this same general period, Congress also saw fit to alter other low-income housing contracts, limiting the prepayment provisions in some HUD agreements and modifying the rent increase provisions in others.”
• rejecting, in a case with analogous facts, the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment takings claim because (1) the government’s infringement of the plaintiffs’ contractual right to prepay the balance of their loans was remediable through a breach-of-contract claim, and (2
• on remand following Franconia Assoc. v. United States, 536 U.S. 129, 134-38, 122 S.Ct. 1993, 153 L.Ed.2d 132 (2002)
• “[C]are must be taken lest the calculation of damages become a quixotic quest for delusive precision or worse, an insurmountable barrier to any recovery.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).