United States v. Darby Lumber Co.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=Yes " to "") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=1941 | |date=1941 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|overturned=Hammer v. Dagenhart | |overturned=Hammer v. Dagenhart | ||
|facts=Questioning the validity of the Fair Labor Standards Act. | |facts=Questioning the validity of the Fair Labor Standards Act. | ||
|issues=Whether Congress has constitutional power to prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of lumber manufactured by employees whose wages are less than a prescribed minimum. | |issues=Whether Congress has constitutional power to prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of lumber manufactured by employees whose wages are less than a prescribed minimum. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 11: | ||
Whether Congress has the power to prohibit he employment of workmen in the production of goods for interstate commerce at other than prescribed wages and hours. | Whether Congress has the power to prohibit he employment of workmen in the production of goods for interstate commerce at other than prescribed wages and hours. | ||
|holding=Hammer v. Dagenhart overruled. | |holding=Hammer v. Dagenhart overruled. | ||
|rule=Such regulation is not a forbidden of state power merely because either its motive or its consequence is to restrict the use of articles of commerce within the states of destination and is not prohibited unless by other Constitutional provisions. | |rule=Such regulation is not a forbidden of state power merely because either its motive or its consequence is to restrict the use of articles of commerce within the states of destination and is not prohibited unless by other Constitutional provisions. | ||
The distinction on which the decision was rested that Congressional power to prohibit interstate commerce is limited to articles which in themselves have some harmful or deleterious property has long since been abandoned. | The distinction on which the decision was rested that Congressional power to prohibit [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Commerce|interstate commerce]] is limited to articles which in themselves have some harmful or deleterious property has long since been abandoned. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:35, July 14, 2023
| United States v. Darby Lumber Co. | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 321 U.S. 100 (1941) |
| Date decided | 1941 |
| Overturned | Hammer v. Dagenhart |
Facts
Questioning the validity of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Issues
Whether Congress has constitutional power to prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of lumber manufactured by employees whose wages are less than a prescribed minimum.
Holding
Hammer v. Dagenhart overruled.
Rule
Such regulation is not a forbidden of state power merely because either its motive or its consequence is to restrict the use of articles of commerce within the states of destination and is not prohibited unless by other Constitutional provisions.
The distinction on which the decision was rested that Congressional power to prohibit interstate commerce is limited to articles which in themselves have some harmful or deleterious property has long since been abandoned.
