No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Briggs & Stratton Corporation v. Baldrige. 539 F.Supp. 1307
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Judicial Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1983
References
1 50 U.S.C. app. §2410 (Supp. III 1979).
2 Id., §2407(a)(1).
3 15 C.F.R. §369.1(e)(2).
4 Id., §369.1(e)(4).
5 Id., §369.1(e)(5).
6 50 U.S.C. app. §2402(5)(B).
7 539 F.Supp. 1307, 1319.
8 Id. at 1320. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied upon the Supreme Court’s analysis in Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979). In Andrus, the Court had reasoned that a loss of future profits, without any physical property restraint, is a slim basis for a taking claim.
Plaintiff also asserted that, should the court rule against its Fifth Amendment claim, “Briggs’ right to pursue its trade and profit from it is worthy of ninth amendment protection.” 539 F.Supp. at 1317. The court found no merit to this “barebones assertion.” Ibid.
9 Magic Chef, Inc. v. Baldrige, No. C82–653A (N.D. Ga. filed Mar. 30, 1982); Trane Co. v. Baldrige, No. 78 C 413 (D. Del. filed Sept. 5, 1978); Monsanto Co. v. Baldrige, No. 82-134-A (S.D. Iowa filed Mar. 1, 1982); Lone Star Steel Co. v. Baldrige, No. 832-0337H (N.D. Tex. filed Mar. 5, 1982); R.J. Reynolds, Inc. v. Baldrige, No. 82–242 (D. Del. filed May 14, 1982).