269 U.S. 385 (1926), 314, Connally v. General Construction Company
| Docket Nº | No. 314 |
| Citation | 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 |
| Party Name | Connally v. General Construction Company |
| Case Date | January 04, 1926 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Page 385
Argued November 30, December 1, 1925
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Syllabus
1. A criminal statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application lacks the first essential of due process of law. P. 391.
2. Oklahoma Comp.Stats. 1921, §§ 7255, 7257, imposing severe, cumulative punishments upon contractors with the State who pay their workmen less than the "current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed" held void for uncertainty. P. 393.
Appeal from a decree of the District Court awarding an interlocutory injunction, upon the bill and a motion to dismiss it (demurrer), in a suit to restrain state and county officials of Oklahoma from enforcing a statute purporting, inter alia, to prescribe a minimum for the wages of workmen employed by contractors in the execution of contracts with the State, and imposing fine or imprisonment for each day's violation.
Page 388
SUTHERLAND, J., lead opinion
MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit to enjoin certain state and county officers of Oklahoma from enforcing the provisions of §§ 7255 and 7257, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes 1921, challenged as unconstitutional. Section 7255 creates an eight-hour day for all persons employed by or on behalf of the state, etc., and provides:
[t]hat not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed shall be paid to laborers, workmen, mechanics, prison guards, janitors in public institutions, or other persons so employed by or on behalf of the state, . . . and laborers, workmen, mechanics, or other persons employed by contractors or subcontractors in the execution of any contract or contracts with the state, . . . shall be deemed to be employed by or on behalf of the state. . . .
For any violation of the section, a penalty is imposed by § 7257 of a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500, or imprisonment for not less than three nor more than six months. Each day that the violation continues is declared to be a separate offense.
Page 389
[46 S.Ct. 127] The material averments of the bill, shortly stated, are to the following effect: the construction company, under contracts with the state, is engaged in constructing certain bridges within the state. In such work, it employs a number of laborers, workmen, and mechanics, with each of whom it has agreed as to the amount of wages to be paid upon the basis of an eight-hour day, and the amount so agreed upon is reasonable and commensurate with the services rendered and agreeable to the employee in each case.
The Commissioner of Labor complained that the rate of wages paid by the company to laborers was only $3.20 per day, whereas, he asserted, the current rate in the locality where the work was being done was $3.60, and gave notice that, unless advised of an intention immediately to comply with the law, action would be taken to enforce compliance. From the correspondence set forth in the bill, it appears that the commissioner based his complaint upon an investigation made by his representative concerning wages "paid to laborers in the vicinity of Cleveland," Okl., near which town one of the bridges was being constructed. This investigation disclosed the following list of employers with the daily rate of wages paid by each: City, $3.60 and $4; Johnson Refining Co., $3.60 and $4.05; Prairie Oil & Gas, $4; Gypsy Oil Co., $4; Gulf Pipe Line Co., $4; Brickyard, $3 and $4; I. Hansen, $3.60; General Construction Company, $3.20; Moore & Pitts Ice Company, $100 per month; cotton gins, $3.50 and $4; Mr. Pitts, $4; Prairie Pipe Line Company, $4; C. B. McCormack, $3; Harry McCoy, $3. The scale of wages paid by the construction company to its laborers was stated to be as follows: six men at $3.20 per day, 7 men at $3.60, 4 men at $4.00, 2 men at $4.40, 4 men at $4.80, 1 man at $5.20, and 1 man at $6.50.
In determining the rate of wages to be paid by the company, the commissioner claimed to be acting under
Page 390
authority of a statute of Oklahoma, which imposes upon him the duty of carrying into effect all laws in relation to labor. In the territory surrounding the bridges being constructed by plaintiff, there is a variety of work performed by laborers, etc., the value of whose services depends upon the class and kind of labor performed and the efficiency of the workmen. Neither the wages paid nor the work performed are uniform. Wages have varied since plaintiff entered into its contracts for constructing the bridges and employing its men, and it is impossible to determine under the circumstances whether the sums paid by the plaintiff or the amount designated by the commissioner or either of them constitute the current per diem wage in the locality. Further averments are to the effect that the commissioner has threatened the company, and its officers, agents, and representatives, with criminal prosecutions under the foregoing statutory provisions, and, unless restrained, the county attorneys for various counties named will institute such prosecutions; and that, under section 7257, providing that each day's failure to pay current wages shall constitute a separate offense, maximum penalties may be inflicted aggregating many thousands of dollars in fines and many years of imprisonment.
The constitutional grounds of attack, among others, are that the statutory provisions, if enforced, will deprive plaintiff, its officers, agents and representatives, of their liberty and property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution; that they contain no ascertainable standard of guilt; that it cannot be determined with any degree of certainty what sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Debarment orders: Girdhari, Premchand,
...The Supreme Court held in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 3256 (1984) (quoting Connally v. General Construction Co., 46 S.Ct. 126, 127 (1926)), that ``a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of some act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence m......
-
Regulations Governing Take of Migratory Birds
...violates the first essential of due process of law.'' Fox Television, 567 U.S. at 253 (quoting Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)). Thus, ``[a] conviction or punishment fails to comply with due process if the statute or regulation under which it is obtained `fails to ......
-
100 F.Supp.2d 78 (D.Mass. 2000), C. A. 98-30170, Wagner v. City of Holyoke
..."of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). A statute must provide "fair notice," and give a "person of ordinary intelligence a......
-
12 F.Supp.2d 364 (D.N.J. 1998), C. A. 98-1398, Waterman v. Verniero
...guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.' " Tribe, supra, § 12-31, at 1033 (quoting Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926)). Vague statutes violate the Due Process Clause because they do not give people fair notice of what co......
-
100 F.Supp.2d 78 (D.Mass. 2000), C. A. 98-30170, Wagner v. City of Holyoke
..."of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). A statute must provide "fair notice," and give a "person of ordinary intelligence a......
-
12 F.Supp.2d 364 (D.N.J. 1998), C. A. 98-1398, Waterman v. Verniero
...guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.' " Tribe, supra, § 12-31, at 1033 (quoting Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926)). Vague statutes violate the Due Process Clause because they do not give people fair notice of what co......
-
126 F.Supp.2d 1320 (D.Mont. 2001), CV00-18, Madison v. Graham
...of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application...." Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). Plaintiffs complain instead that the Stream Access Law fails to state whether or not recreationalists......
-
243 F.2d 693 (6th Cir. 1957), 12856, North Am. Van Lines, Inc. v. United States
...582, 75 L.Ed. 1264; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445, 456, 47 S.Ct. 681, 71 L.Ed. 1146; Connally v. General Construction Company, 269 U.S. 385, 391-393, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 516; International Harves......
-
Does a public filing of financial information pertinent to the sale of securities give investors constructive notice of the information?
...found to result either from the text of the statutes involved or the subjects with which they dealt." Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391-92, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127-28, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). Thus, in our review of the use of "material fact" in this case, we need not r......
-
Is the Maryland Statute prohibiting the promotion of pyramid program unconstitutionally vague?
...those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties." Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). "[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of c......
-
FCC, Fox, And That Other F-Word
...2003 Broadcast of the Program "NYPD Blue," 23 FCC Rcd. 3147, 3150 (2008)). 39 Id. at 2317 (citing Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)). 40 Id. (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008)). 41 Id. (citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104......
-
Is the New Mexico state multilevel sales act an unconstitutional restraint of speech or unconstitutionally vague?
...A statute is unconstitutionally vague only if people of common intelligence must guess as to its meaning. Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926); In re Doe, 100 N.M. 92, 666 P.2d 771 (1983); State v. Casteneda. The language of the statute must give ......
-
Protecting the living and the dead: how Missouri can enact a constitutional funeral-protest statute.
...for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 505 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 800). (67.) See, e.g., Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (68.) Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983). (69.) See Members of the City Council of L.A. v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789,......
-
Analyzing the Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine as Applied to Statutory Defenses: Lessons from Iowa's Stand-Your-Ground Law
...138 S. Ct. 1204, 1228 (2018) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (quoting Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)). 62. United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954) (“The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsib......
-
Obstruction of justice.
...569 F.2d 1331, 1336-37 (5th Cir. 1978). (85.) Griffin, 589 F.2d at 206; Howard, 569 F.2d at 1331. (86.) Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). (87.) See, e.g., Cintolo, 818 F.2d at 996 (attorney role in defending client not immune to [sections] 1503 charges); Jeter, 775 ......
-
Public choice theory and overcriminalization.
...at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307, 2317 (2012); Chicago v. Morales, 527 U......
-
Debarment orders: Girdhari, Premchand,
...The Supreme Court held in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 3256 (1984) (quoting Connally v. General Construction Co., 46 S.Ct. 126, 127 (1926)), that ``a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of some act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence m......
-
Regulations Governing Take of Migratory Birds
...violates the first essential of due process of law.'' Fox Television, 567 U.S. at 253 (quoting Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)). Thus, ``[a] conviction or punishment fails to comply with due process if the statute or regulation under which it is obtained `fails to ......
-
Regulations Governing Take of Migratory Birds
...violates the first essential of due process of law.’’ Fox Television, 567 U.S. at 253 (quoting Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)). Thus, ‘‘[a] conviction or punishment fails to comply with due process if the statute or regulation under which it is obtained ‘fails to ......