Citation network
Coppage Vs. Kansas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 25, 1915
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
-
U.S. 1 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Coppage v. KansasSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1915) Coppage v. KansasSearch
-
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Adair v. UnitedSearch
-
examined it to the extent necessary in order to determine the federal right that is asserted ( Southern Pacific Co. v. SchuylerSearch
-
insistence is not rendered unlawful by the fact that the choice involved a pecuniary sacrifice to Hedges. Silliman v. UnitedSearch
-
Hackley v. HeadleySearch
-
Emery v. LowellSearch
-
Custin v. ViroquaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
being subject to no incapacity or disability, but, on the contrary, free to exercise a voluntary choice. In Adair v. UnitedSearch
-
S. 175 ), as the first in order of a number of decisions supporting the conclusion of the court, a case ( People v. MarcusSearch
-
or of its continuance if it be terminable at will. It follows that this case cannot be distinguished from Adair v. UnitedSearch
-
stated, this Court deals not with moot cases or abstract questions, but with the concrete case before it. California v. SanSearch
-
Missouri, Kan. & Texas Ry. v. CadeSearch
-
Court cannot, in the proper performance of its duty, yield its judgment to that of the state court. St. Louis S.W. Ry. v. ArkansasSearch
-
limit the enjoyment of personal liberty, including the right of making contracts. They are reviewed in Holden v. HardySearch
-
Chicago, B. & Quincy R. Co. v. McGuireSearch
-
the general public. There involve other considerations, respecting which we intend to intimate no opinion. See Curran v. GalenSearch
-
Jacobs v. CohenSearch
-
Plant v. WoodsSearch
-
Berry v. DonovanSearch
-
Brennan v. UnitedSearch
-
that which is now under review. The single previous instance in which any court has upheld such a statute is Davis v. StateSearch
-
conviction fined or imprisoned. We are unable to find that this decision was ever directly reviewed, but, in State v. BatemanSearch
-
the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore beyond legislative interference. In Coffeyville Brick Co. v. PerrySearch
-
In Railway Co. v. BrownSearch
-
last resort have had similar acts under consideration, and in each instance have held them unconstitutional. In State v. JulowSearch
-
In Gillespie v. PeopleSearch
-
should be guilty of a misdemeanor. In State ex Rel. Zillmer v. KreutzbergSearch
-
this was denounced Page 236 U. S. 26 upon able and learned reasoning that has a much wider reach. In People v. MarcusSearch
-
c. 688), as we have already said, was in substance identical with the Kansas act. These decisions antedated Adair v. UnitedSearch
-
cited with approval in the opinion (208 U.S. 208 U. S. 175 ). A like result was reached in State ex Rel. Smith v. DanielsSearch
-
or a labor organization. This was held invalid upon the authority of the Adair case. And see Goldfield Mines Co. v. GoldfieldSearch
-
Page 236 U. S. 27 only by belonging to a union can he secure a contract that shall be fair to him. Holden v. HardySearch
-
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. McGuireSearch
-
I am strongly of opinion that there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent it, and that Adair v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 208 U. S. 161 , and Lochner v. NewSearch
-
have stated my grounds in those cases, and think it unnecessary to add others that I think exist. See further Vegelahn v. GuntnerSearch
-
purpose to say in this case to refer to all the cases in which this doctrine has been declared. One of them is Frisbie v. UnitedSearch
-
Holden v. HardySearch
-
Atlantic Coast Line v. RiversideSearch
-
conflict of serious opinion does not suffice to bring it within the range of judicial cognizance. C., B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuireSearch
-
German Alliance Insurance Co. v. LewisSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Coppage v. KansasSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial