Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U.S. 749, 16 (1995)

Page:   Index   Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16

764

REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. v. HYDE

Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment

ring in judgment), Bendix did not "decide . . . 'an issue of first impression,' " Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Caryl, 497 U. S. 916, 920 (1990) (per curiam) (quoting Chevron Oil, supra, at 106), come "out of the blue," James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U. S. 529, 556 (1991) (O'Connor, J., dissenting), or represent "an avulsive change which caused the current of the law thereafter to flow between new banks," Hanover Shoe, supra, at 499.

Bendix did not announce a new rule of law, so I would reverse on this ground, postponing extended discussion of reliance interests as they bear upon remedies for a case which requires us to address that issue.

Page:   Index   Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16

Last modified: October 4, 2007