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 although a state law substantially impaired contracts, it did not violate the Contracts Clause because “it was passed for a legitimate public purpose”: “to bring needed relief to the victims of the Northridge Earthquake.”
• explaining \ Section 2071 is not technically a statute of limitations\ but nonetheless interpreting it through the lens of this statute
• stating 1 A. NLRA Preemption 2 CGA argues that the NLRA preempts the Ordinance, as the Ordinance’s 3 operation impermissibly nullifies collective bargaining mechanics and dictates 4 any outcome. (Opp’n 6–13.
• challenge to statute reviving time barred insurance claims arising from major earthquake is ‘‘ret- rospective economic legislation [that] must only pass rational basis review’’
• using California law to interpret contractual time limitations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).