Making the Case for Night Work Legislation in Progressive Era New York, 1911-1915

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Thomas McGuire
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
Night Work ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
The U.S

In 1907 the New York Court of Appeals considered a bindery company's challenge to a night work law passed by New York's legislature in 1898 and amended in 1903. The statute stated that “no female shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in any factory in this state before six o'clock in the morning, or after nine o'clock in the evening of any day.” The outcome of the case was preordained, for New York's highest court was famous for advocating the legal “freedom of contract” principle, which negated state efforts to limit workers' hours. From 1878 through 1904 the Court of Appeals had held that any restriction on laborers' hours was unconstitutional. The only exception, Lochner v. New York, had been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal.

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Business Financing ◽  
The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

The Justiciability of Paraguay’s Claim of Treaty Violation

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 697-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Fisler Damrosch
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Government’s position asserting nonjusticiability of the treaty claims raised by Paraguay in the domestic and international lawsuits is disturbing. The Government’s amicus filings at the court of appeals and the Supreme Court denied that Paraguay’s claims belonged in federal court (or indeed in any court at all); at die International Court of Justice, the United States admitted a treaty violation but denied the competence of that tribunal to enter a judicial remedy. At one or another phase of these proceedings, the U.S. Government pressed a variety of arguments that (if accepted) would rule out virtually any judicial consideration of a treaty-based claim. The haste with which the Supreme Court denied a stay in Breard’s case foreclosed adequate consideration of the justiciability of such claims in domestic courts and also effectively barred Paraguay from achieving the relief it sought on the international plane.

The Not-So-Strange Birth of the Modern American State: A Comment on James A. Henretta's “Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America”

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Novak
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
Legal Opinions ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

James Henretta's “Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America” takes up one of the most interesting and important interpretive questions in the history of American political economy. What explains the dramatic transformation in liberal ideology and governance between 1877 and 1937 that carried the United States from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism? That question has preoccupied legions of historians, political-economists, and legal scholars (as well as politicians and ideologues) at least since Hughes himself opened the October 1935 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court in a brand new building and amid a rising chorus of constitutional criticism. Henretta, wisely in my opinion, looks to law, particularly public law, for new insights into that great transformation. But, of course, the challenge in using legal history to answer such a question is the enormous increase in the actual policy output of courts, legislatures, and administrative agencies in this period. Trying to synthesize the complex changes in “law-in-action” in the fiercely contested forums of turn-of-the-century America sometimes seems the historical-sociological equivalent of attempting to empty the sea with a slotted spoon. Like any good social scientist, Henretta responds to the impossibility of surveying the whole by taking a sample. Through a case-study of the ideas, political reforms, and legal opinions of Charles Evans Hughes, particularly as governor of New York and associate and chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Henretta offers us in microcosm the story of the revolution (or rather several revolutions) in modern American governance.

Secular Schools? Religious Practices in New York and Viginia Public Schools Since World War II

1992 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-388
Author(s):  
Bruce J. Dierenfield
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
New York ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Church And State ◽  
World War ◽  
State Relations ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
The U.S

Scholars examining the controversy over church-state relations in the modern era have concentrated almost exclusively on its constitutional aspects. This is to be expected since the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down epic decisions that have drawn an increasingly sharper picture of the First Amendment's guideline concerning the government's involvement in religion. The Court did, in fact, lead the way in establishing or reestablishing the doctrine called “separation of church and state.” But the Court touched off a furious debate within the states that has intermittently yet persistently influenced public policy since the early 1960s. It is time that scholars examine more closely the participants outside of the Court.

Under the Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 98 (7) ◽  
pp. 76-77
Author(s):  
Julie Underwood
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
K 12 ◽  
The U.S

How would the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (presuming he is confirmed by the U.S. Congress) affect the court’s dynamics, its ideological balance, and specifically its decisions on cases that bear upon K-12 education? Is he likely to be another Justice Antonin Scalia, will he be less conservative, or will he be more so? The author looks for clues in the opinions Gorsuch has written for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 911-921
Author(s):  
Steven Skulnik
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Power Conversion ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
The U.S

On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC. The decision is significant for its holding that nothing in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the Convention or the New York Convention) or the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA) prohibits courts from deciding that non-signatories may be bound by or enforce international arbitration agreements based on contract, agency, equity, or related principles.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document