|
__NOTOC__ ''Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell'', 290 U.S. 398 (1934), 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. ==Background and decision== In 1933, in response to a large number of home foreclosures, Minnesota, like many other states at the time, 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 (State's ) continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts."〔''Blaisdell'', 290 U.S. 398, at 437.〕 ''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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|