Horwitz-Matthews, Incorporated v. City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• stating “[i]t would be absurd to turn every breach of contract by a state or municipality into a violation of the federal Constitution”
• analyzing challenge to 1998 ordinance which repealed city’s 1988 approval of sale of condemned property to plaintiff and concluding that no impairment of contract occurred
• “It would be absurd to turn every breach of contract by a state or municipality into a violation of the federal Constitution.”
• \The analogy to the principle that government does not violate the takings clause if it stands ready to pay compensation for its taking should be evident.\ (citations omitted)
• “It would be absurd to turn every breach of contract by a state or municipality into a violation of the federal Constitution.”
• “It would be absurd to turn every breach of contract by a state or municipality into a violation of the federal Constitution”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).