Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)

Citation
Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
Parent Document
Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
Effective Date
1984-01-30

Other Sections in This Document (109)

Full Text

901 chars
28
In 1934 the Supreme Court took a historic step toward inverting the longstanding dichotomy between public and private contracts. In the significant case of Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413 (1934), the Court held that the contract clause should not be read as a serious impediment to state social and economic legislation affecting private contracts. Blaisdell examined a Minnesota mortgage moratorium law, enacted as an emergency measure during the great Depression, which extended the redemption period for mortgages. In sustaining the extended redemption period, the Court held for the first time that legislation retroactively affecting the value of an underlying contractual obligation did not violate the contract clause when enacted in pursuit of legitimate economic or social objectives. "The economic interests of the State," the Court held,