Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lochner Vs. New York

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 17, 1906

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

71 entries 12 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Crowley Vs. Christensen US Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1890
  2. Brimmer Vs. Rebman US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1891
  3. Lawton Vs. Steele US Supreme Court · Mar 06, 1894
  4. Jacobson Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1905
  5. Minnesota Vs. Barber US Supreme Court · May 19, 1890
  6. AtkIn Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1903
  7. Mugler Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1887
  8. Holden Vs. Hardy US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1898
    Relied / Followed
  9. Knoxville Iron Co. Vs. Harbison US Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1901
  10. Yick Wo Vs. Hopkins US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
  11. Barbier Vs. Connolly US Supreme Court · Jan 05, 1885
  12. Gundling Vs. Chicago US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1900
  13. Lochner v. New
    Search
  14. York - 198 U.S. 45 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Lochner v. New
    Search
  15. York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) Lochner v. New
    Search
  16. is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Allgeyer v. Louisiana
    Search
  17. the exercise of those powers, and with such conditions the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to interfere. Mugler v. Kansas
    Search
  18. statutes thus assailed. Among the later cases where the state law has been upheld by this court is that of Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  19. under which the slightest violation of the provisions of the act would be innocent. There is nothing in Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  20. which covers the case now before us. Nor does Atkin v. Kansas
    Search
  21. the condition upon which it will permit work of a public character to be done for a municipality. Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison
    Search
  22. by the miner to the employer. The latest case decided by this court involving the police power is that of Jacobson v. Massachusetts
    Search
  23. That case is also far from covering the one now before the court. Petit v. Minnesota
    Search
  24. as we have already stated, from the expressions of this court in regard to laws of this nature, as stated in Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  25. and Jacobson v. Massachusetts
    Search
  26. and occupations of the people seems to be on the increase. In the Supreme Court of New York, in the case of People v. Beattie
    Search
  27. was unconstitutional as an illegitimate exercise of the police power. The Supreme Court of Illinois in Bessette v. People
    Search
  28. such calling as he may choose, subject only to the restraint necessary secure the common welfare. See also Godcharles v. Wigeman
    Search
  29. Low v. Rees
    Search
  30. from the natural effect of such statutes when put into operation, and not from their proclaimed purpose. Minnesota v. Barber
    Search
  31. U. S. 78 . The court looks beyond the mere letter of the law in such cases. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
    Search
  32. health, and the safety of the public against the injurious exercise by any citizen of his own rights. In Patterson v. Kentucky
    Search
  33. So, in Barbier v. Connolly
    Search
  34. This was declared Page 198 U. S. 66 in Allgeyer v. Louisiana
    Search
  35. P. 165 U. S. 591 ). So, as said in Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  36. and protection, or the safety of adjacent property. While this court has held, notably in the cases of Davidson v. New
    Search
  37. Orleans, 96 U. S. 97 , and Yick Wo v. Hopkins
    Search
  38. Subsequently in Gundling v. Chicago
    Search
  39. As stated in Crowley v. Christensen
    Search
  40. Ry. v. Paul
    Search
  41. U. S. 404 , 173 U. S. 409 , and in Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison
    Search
  42. or held invalid unless it be, beyond question, plainly and palpably in excess of legislative power. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts
    Search
  43. citing Mugler v. Kansas
    Search
  44. is questioned, the burden of proof, so to speak, is upon those who assert it to be unconstitutional. McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  45. relation between the means employed by the State and the end sought to be accomplished by its legislation. Mugler v. Kansas
    Search
  46. no appropriate or direct connection with that protection to health which each State owes to her citizens, Patterson v. Kentucky
    Search
  47. or that it is not promotive of the health of the employees in question, Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  48. or that the regulation prescribed by the State is utterly unreasonable and extravagant or wholly arbitrary, Gundling v. Chicago
    Search
  49. that the statute is, beyond question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Jacobson v. Massachusetts
    Search
  50. enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics. The other day, we sustained the Massachusetts vaccination law. Jacobson v. Massachusetts
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial