Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)

Citation
Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)
Parent Document
Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)
Effective Date
1972-02-23

Other Sections in This Document (263)

Full Text

655 chars
The Court also implies that to find for appellants in this case, we would have to hold, as a matter of constitutional law, that a lease is required to be interpreted as an ordinary contract. But this is not at all necessary. Oregon has already adopted the modern, contractual view of leasehold analysis. The issue that confronts the Court is not whether such a view is constitutionally compelled, but whether, once Oregon has gone this far as a matter of state law, the requirements of due process permit a restriction of contract-type defenses in an FED action. Cf. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 627 n. 6; Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 404-406.