Case Citator › Lynch v. United States

Lynch v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
292 U.S. 571
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
83 of 83
Citing cases (total)
83
Treatment dates
1978–1982
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Lynch v. United States has limited treatment: all 83 flagged citations have been read, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

83 later cases cite Lynch v. United States; 83 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Lynch v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Court of Claims confined Lynch's contract-taking rule to congressional abrogation and declined to extend it to unilateral interference by an executive official.

    Sun Oil Co. v. United States · United States Court of Claims · filed

    In Lynch, v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 579 (1934), relied on by plaintiffs, it was stated: “ * * * Rights against the United States arising out of a contract with it are protected by the Fifth amendment.” The significant fact in the Lynch case is that congressional action abrogated the contracts in issue thereby giving rise to a taking by authorized governmental action. Interference by Congress, and not the Secretary, with plaintiffs’ contractual rights is a necessary predicate for finding a valid taking claim here.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The D.C. Circuit called Lynch's statement that all valid contracts are Fifth Amendment property broad dicta and questioned its application to private contracts.

    Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. FERC · D.C. Circuit · filed

    There are a number of obvious weaknesses to Con Ed's taking argument. First, it is far from clear that private contractual arrangements are “property” within the meaning of the fifth amendment. Although the Court has stated in broad dicta that “valid contracts are property whether the obligor be a private individual, a municipality, a state or the United States,” see Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 579, 54 S.Ct. 840, 843, 78 L.Ed. 1434 (1934) ... courts have not previously held impairments of contracts to be takings outside the context of contracts with governments.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lynch v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace