Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. American Surety Co. of New York v. Commonwealth. June 16, 1904

1904 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 308 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals

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.

Constitutional Law in 1953–1954

1955 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-106
Author(s):  
David Fellman
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
General Counsel ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
Solicitor General ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Law Degree

The membership of the Supreme Court remained unchanged during the 1953 Term. Chief Justice Vinson died on September 8, shortly before the opening of the Term. Governor Earl Warren of California was given a recess appointment by President Eisenhower on October 2, and was sworn in as the fourteenth Chief Justice on October 5. The Senate Judiciary Committee moved slowly, however, and the appointment did not reach the Senate until March 1, 1954, when it was confirmed by a voice vote without opposition.A week after the 1954 Term got under way Justice Robert H Jackson died, of a heart attack, on October 9, 1954, at the age of 62. For a man who had no law degree, Justice Jackson had done very well in the law. After a brilliant career as a lawyer in Jamestown, New York, he entered the government service in 1934 as General Counsel to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. He was appointed Solicitor-General in 1938, Attorney-General in 1940, and was elevated to the Supreme Court by President Roosevelt in June, 1941. He served as chief American prosecutor at the Nürnberg trial of top Nazi war criminals. Though appointed with the reputation of being a liberal New Dealer, Justice Jackson was actually close to the very center of the Court in many cases where the Justices were sharply divided. He was one of the most gifted opinion-writers on the Court, with a flair for felicitous phrasing and well-turned epigrams. To take the place of Justice Jackson, President Eisenhower nominated, on November 8, 1954, Judge John Marshall Harlan, whom he had appointed the previous March to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge Harlan, once a successful New York lawyer, is the grandson of the Justice Harlan who served with such distinction from 1877 to 1911.

Current Developments, 1971

1972 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 196-196
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Canadian Pacific Railway

Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss Jena, 433 F.2d 686 (2d Cir., Nov. 2, 1970), 65 A.J.I.L. 611 (1971); cert. den. sub nom. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss Jena v. Carl Zeiss Stiftung, 403 U.S. 905 (June 7, 1971).Gooch v. Clark, 433 F.2d 74 (9th Cir., Sept. 8, 1970), 65 A.J.I.L. 618 (1971); cert. den. sub nom. Gooch v. Mitchell, 402 U.S. 995 (May 24, 1971).Oliner v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., 311 N.Y.S.2d 429 (Supreme Court, App. Div., First Dept., New York, June 9, 1970), 65 A.J.I.L. 205 (1971); aff’d., 318 N.Y.S.2d 745 (Court of Appeals, New York, Dec. 10, 1970).

Public Law in the State Courts in 1925–1926

1926 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 583-603
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
First Time ◽  
The City

Validity of Procedure. In the summer of 1925 the appellate division of the supreme court of New York held that the City Home Rule Amendment of 1923 had not been legally adopted and was invalid. In the case of Browne v. City of New York the court of appeals reversed this decision and held the amendment valid. The chief ground of attack on the amendment was, it is believed, unique. It may be stated as follows: The New York constitution requires an amendment to be proposed by one legislature, approved by the legislature chosen at the next election of senators, and then ratified by the voters. The City Home Rule Amendment was proposed by the legislature of 1922, approved by that of 1923, and ratified at the polls in 1923. It was an amendment to Article XII. But the legislature of 1922 had also approved an amendment to Article XII, relatively trivial in nature, which had originated in the legislature of 1920. This amendment was ratified in November, 1922, and went into effect in January, 1923, before the second legislative approval of the City Home Rule Amendment. In other words Article XII, which the City Home Rule Amendment changed, was not the same when the amendment passed the legislature for the first time as when it passed the second time. The appellate division held not only that the amendment must be the same when passed by the two legislatures but that the provision amended must also be the same.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document