O'DELL ET AL.

v.

ESPINOZA, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ESPINOZA AND AS GUARDIAN, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Sec. Indus. Bank, 459 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1982)
  …§ 522(f)(2) effects a “complete taking of the secured creditors’ property interests,” and is thus invalid under Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 [*74] U. S. 555 (1935).4 The United States appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 454 U. S. 1122 (1981). The appellees, of course, defend the judgment of the Court of Appeals.5 The Government argues at some length that retrospective application of § 522(f)(2) to these liens would not violate the Fifth Amendment. It contends that the enactment…
• Blum v. Bacon, 457 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1982)
  …eclosed a finding that the law violates the Supremacy Clause. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that both the no-cash and loss-or-theft provisions violate equal protection. Bacon v. Toia, 648 F. 2d 801 (1981;. We noted probable jurisdiction. 454 U. S. 1122. II Where a party raises both statutory and constitutional arguments in support of a judgment, ordinarily we first address the statutory argument in order to avoid unnecessary resolution of the constitutional issue. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U…
• Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1982)
  …d “remanded with directions for the lower court to call and require the holding of an election.” Ibid. We granted certio-rari to decide whether the Mississippi Supreme Court properly ordered the election without insuring compliance with federal law. 454 U. S. 1122 (1981).8 II Before addressing the federal question raised by the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision, we must consider respondents’ assertion that the lower court decision rests upon two adequate and independent state grounds. First, respondents…