| 词条 | Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell |ArgueDateA=November 8 |ArgueDateB=9 |ArgueYear=1933 |DecideDate=January 8 |DecideYear=1934 |FullName=Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, et ux. |USVol=290 |USPage=398 |ParallelCitations=54 S. Ct. 231, 78 L. Ed. 413, 1934 U.S. LEXIS 958; 88 A.L.R. 1481 |Prior=Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. |Subsequent= |Holding=Minnesota's suspension of creditor's remedies was not in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Act upheld. |SCOTUS=1932-1937 |Majority=Hughes |JoinMajority=Brandeis, Stone, Roberts, Cardozo |Dissent=Sutherland |JoinDissent=Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler |LawsApplied= }}Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934),[1] was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that Minnesota's suspension of creditors' remedies was not in violation of the United States Constitution. Blaisdell was decided during the depth of the Great Depression and has been criticized by modern conservative and libertarian commentators.[2][3][4] Background and decisionIn 1933, in response to a large number of home foreclosures, Minnesota, like many other states at the time,[5] extended the time available for mortgagors to redeem their mortgages from foreclosure. The extension had the effect of enlarging the mortgagor's estate contrary to the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court upheld the statute, reasoning that the emergency conditions created by the Great Depression "may justify the exercise of [the State's] continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts."[6] Blaisdell was the first time the court extended the emergency exception to purely economic emergencies. While the Blaisdell judgment itself might have been held to apply only in limited instances of economic emergency, by the late 1930s the emergency exception doctrine had expanded dramatically.[7] CriticismAdherents of the Chicago school of economics have characterized Blaisdell among the Court precedents that have diminished constitutional protection of individual property rights. Richard Epstein's (the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law and Adjunct Scholar at the American libertarian think tank Cato Institute) criticisms have been some of the most vocal: {{quote|Blaisdell trumpeted a false liberation from the constitutional text that has paved the way for massive government intervention that undermines the security of private transactions. Today the police power exception has come to eviscerate the contracts clause.[2]}}See also
References1. ^{{ussc|name=Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell|volume=290|page=398|pin=|year=1934}}. {{usgovpd}} 2. ^1 {{cite journal |last=Epstein |first= Richard A. |year=1984 |title=Toward a Revitalization of the Contract Clause |journal=University of Chicago Law Review |volume=51 |issue=3 |pages=703–751 |doi=10.2307/1599484 |publisher=The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 3 |jstor=1599484 |url=http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4365&context=uclrev }} 3. ^{{cite journal |last=Burch |first=Alan R. |year=1999 |title=Purchasing the Right to Govern: Winstar and the Need to Reconceptualize the Law of Regulatory Agreements |journal=Kentucky Law Journal |volume=88 |pages=245, 279 |issn=0023-026X }} 4. ^{{cite journal |last=Arkes |first=Hadley |year=1999 |title=On the Novelties of an Old Constitution: Settled Principles and Unsettling Surprises |journal=American Journal of Jurisprudence |volume=44 |pages=15, 17 |issn=0065-8995 |doi=10.1093/ajj/44.1.15}} 5. ^{{cite journal |last=Wright |first=Fred |year=2005 |title=The Effect of New Deal Real Estate Residential Finance and Foreclosure Policies Made in Response to the Real Estate Conditions of the Great Depression |journal=Alabama Law Review |volume=57 |pages=231, 240–241 |issn=0002-4279 }} 6. ^Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, at 437. 7. ^{{cite journal |last=Butler |first=Henry N. |author2=Ribstein, Larry E. |year=1999 |title=Regulating Corporate Takeovers: State Anti-takeover Statutes and the Contract Clause |journal=University of Cincinnati Law Review |volume=57 |pages=611, 627 |issn=0009-6881 }} Further reading
External links
| case = Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, {{ussc|290|398|1934|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/102167/home-building-loan-assn-v-blaisdell/ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/290/398.html | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8045354711683233471 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/290/398/case.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep290/usrep290398/usrep290398.pdf{{DEFAULTSORT:Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell}} 5 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court|1934 in United States case law|Contract Clause case law|History of libertarianism |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。