Labels:book | reckoner | sky | windowpane OCR: The court of appeals acknowledged the argument that respondent's purported entillement to continucd em- ployment was "limited by the prospect of Fidclity's place- ment it recei ivership put that argument "appeal- ine Pet. App. 26a. But the court rejected on the ground that [4], fact that federal and, arguably. state law conferred wide discretion receivers rcpudiate 'burdensome contracts does not retrospectively. annuI the state cntitlement Pet ApP 26a. The court's reasoning flawed, for our argument is not that respondent's right was "retrospectively annulled. but rather that from the beginning he had no legitimale peci tation 10 continued employment by federal receiver. The difference can he illustrated by transposing this case See, e.n. FDIC V Mailen, 486 U.S. 230, 245 (1988) (whether sta ...
(.png)
