Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T16:15:16.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Briggs & Stratton Corporation v. Baldrige. 539 F.Supp. 1307

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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).