Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Adkins Vs. Children's Hosp.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 09, 1923

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

69 entries 10 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Coppage Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1915
  2. Muller Vs. Oregon US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1908
  3. Heim Vs. Mccall US Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1915
  4. Knoxville Iron Co. Vs. Harbison US Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1901
  5. Riley Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1914
  6. Bosley Vs. Mclaughlin US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1915
  7. AtkIn Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1903
  8. Holden Vs. Hardy US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1898
    Relied / Followed
  9. Pennsylvania Coal Co. Vs. Mahon US Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1922
  10. Bunting Vs. Oregon US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1917
    Distinguished
  11. Adkins v. Children's
    Search
  12. Hosp. - 261 U.S. 525 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court Adkins v. Children's
    Search
  13. Hosp., 261 U.S. 525 (1923) Adkins v. Children's
    Search
  14. admit of doubt, and this the appellants virtually conceded by having themselves invoked the jurisdiction. See Rooker v. Fidelity
    Search
  15. protected by this clause, is settled by the decisions of this Court and is no longer open to question. Allgeyer v. Louisiana
    Search
  16. New York Life Insurance Co. v. Dodge
    Search
  17. Adair v. United
    Search
  18. Lochner v. New
    Search
  19. Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent
    Search
  20. an equal right to obtain from each other the best terms they can as the result of private bargaining. In Adair v. United
    Search
  21. In Coppage v. Kansas
    Search
  22. be exacted by businesses impressed with a public interest. There are many cases, but it is sufficient to cite Munn v. Illinois
    Search
  23. their incidental and injurious or destructive effect upon preexisting contracts. See Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley
    Search
  24. be laid aside as inapplicable. (2) Statutes relating to contracts for the performance of public work. Atkin v. Kansas
    Search
  25. Ellis v. United
    Search
  26. Statutes prescribing the character, methods and time for payment of wages. Under this head may be included McLean v. Arkansas
    Search
  27. Erie R.R. Co. v. Williams
    Search
  28. has thus far been brought to the attention of this Court which by its terms, applied to all occupations. In Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  29. courts. That this constituted the basis of the decision is emphasized by the subsequent decision in Lochner v. New
    Search
  30. which restricted the employment of all persons in bakeries to ten hours in anyone day. The Court referred to Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  31. been distinguished from that decision, but the principles therein stated have never been disapproved. In Bunting v. Oregon
    Search
  32. wages, but that contention was rejected and the law sustained as a reasonable regulation of hours of service. Wilson v. New
    Search
  33. are forbidden to agree. Page 261 U. S. 552 The same principle was applied in the Rent Cases ( Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  34. U. S. 135 , and Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman
    Search
  35. citing Wilson v. New
    Search
  36. In a subsequent case, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
    Search
  37. Miller v. Wilson
    Search
  38. As to that, one would think, the line had been pricked out so that it has become a well formulated rule. In Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  39. it was applied to miners and rested on the unfavorable environment of employment in mining and smelting. In Lochner v. New
    Search
  40. the liberty of contract secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. Then followed a number of cases, beginning with Muller v. Oregon
    Search
  41. limit on maximum hours of labor for women, to which I shall hereafter allude, and, following these cases, came Bunting v. Oregon
    Search
  42. Court which have sustained legislative limitations in respect to the wage term in contracts of employment. In McLean v. Arkansas
    Search
  43. to make it unlawful to estimate the graduated .pay of miners by weight after screening the coal. In Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison
    Search
  44. U. S. 13 , it was held that store orders issued for wages must be redeemable in cash. In Patterson v. Bark
    Search
  45. U. S. 169 , a law forbidding the payment of wages in advance was held valid. A like case is Strathearn S.S. Co. v. Dillon
    Search
  46. of contract in his own interest because of his proneness to squander his wages in port before sailing. In Bunting v. Oregon
    Search
  47. and morals of workers, as for the view that long hours injure their health, then I respectfully submit that Muller v. Oregon
    Search
  48. of women, with power in the board to make certain exceptions. Mr. Justice Brewer, who spoke for the Court in Muller v. Oregon
    Search
  49. her health, and we have had since a series of cases which may be said to have established a rule of decision. Riley v. Massachusetts
    Search
  50. Page 261 U. S. 567 I am not sure from a reading of the opinion whether the Court thinks the authority of Muller v. Oregon
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial