Summary

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Norfolk and Western Railway Company v…

Moreover, given the respect that our legal system has always paid to the enforceability of private contracts-a respect that is evidenced by express language in the Constitution itself [6] -there should be a powerful presumption against finding an implied authority to impair contracts in a statute that was enacted to alleviate a legitimate concern about the antitrust laws. Had Congress intended to convey the message the Court finds in § 11341, it surely would have said expressly that the exemption was from all restraints imposed by law or by private contract.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Norfolk and Western Railway Company v…

Since the federal law clearly contemplates merger as a step in continuing the enterprise, it follows that what Michigan law might give these dissenters on a windingup or liquidation is irrelevant, except insofar as it may be reflected in current values for which they are entitled to an equivalent. It would be inconsistent to allow state law to apply a liquidation basis to what federal law designates as a basis for continued public service.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Norfolk and Western Railway Company v…

Obviously, consolidated carriers would find it useful to have the ability to disavow disadvantageous long-term leases on obsolete car repair facilities, employment contracts with high salaried executives whose services are no longer needed, as well as collective-bargaining agreements that provide costly job security to a shrinking work force. If Congress had intended to give the ICC such broad ranging power to impair contracts, it would have done so in language much clearer than anything that can be found in the present Act.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature