Barbier v. Connolly
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FIELD |
| Citation | 5 S.Ct. 357,28 L.Ed. 923,113 U.S. 27 |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1884 |
| Parties | BARBIER v. CONNOLLY |
On the eighth of April, 1884, the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, the legislative authority of that municipality, passed an ordinance reciting that the indiscriminate establishment of public laundries and wash-houses, where clothes and other articles were cleansed for hire, endangered the public health and the public safety, prejudiced the well-being and comfort of the community, and depreciated the value of property in their neighborhood; and then ordaining, pursuant to authority alleged to be vested in the board under provisions of the state constitution, and of the act of April 19, 1856, consolidating the government of the city and county, that after its passage it should be unlawful for any person to establish, maintain, or carry on the business of a public laundry or of a public wash-house within certain designated limits of the city and county without first having obtained a certificate, signed by the health officer of the municipality, that the premises were properly and sufficiently drained, and that all proper arrangements were made to carry on the business without injury to the sanitary condition of the neighborhood; also a certificate, signed by the board of fire-wardens of the municipality, that the stoves, washing and drying apparatus, and the appliances for heating smoothing-irons were in good condition, and that their use was not dangerous to the surrounding
Page 28
property from fire, and that all proper precautions were taken to comply with the provisions of the ordinance defining the fire limits of the city and county, and making regulations concerning the erection and use of buildings therein.
The ordinance requires the health officer and board of fire-wardens, upon application of any one to open or conduct the business of a public laundry, to inspect the premises in which it is proposed to carry on the business, in order to ascertain whether they are provided with proper drainage and sanitary appliances, and whether the provisions of the fire ordinance have been complied with; and, if found satisfactory in all respects, to issue to the applicant the required certificates without charge for the services rendered. Its fourth section declares that no person owning or employed in a public laundry or a public wash-house, within the prescribed limits, shall wash or iron clothes between the hours of 10 in the evening and 6 in the morning, or upon any portion of Sunday; and its fifth section, that no person engaged in the laundry business within those limits shall permit any one suffering from an infectious or contagious disease to lodge, sleep, or remain upon the premises. The violation of any of these several provisions is declared to be a misdemeanor, and penalties are prescribed differing in degree according to the nature of the offense. The establishing, maintaining, or carrying on the business, without obtaining the certificates, is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment of not more than six months, or by both. Carrying on the business outside of the hours prescribed, or permitting persons with contagious diseases on the premises, is punishable by a fine of not less than $5 or more than $50, or by imprisonment of not more than one month, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The petitioner in the court below, the plaintiff in error here, was convicted in the police judge's court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larabee v. Dolley, 8,810
...in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment.' 113 U.S. 27, 32 (5 Sup.Ct. 357, 360, 28 L.Ed. 923.)' In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 Sup.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering t......
-
City of Huntington v. State Water Commission, No. 10476
...[137 W.Va. 799] and were not designed to limit, the subjects upon which the police power of the state may be exerted. Barbier v. Connelly, 113 U.S. 27, 5 S.Ct. 641 [28 L.Ed. 923]; [Minneapolis & St. L.] Railway Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 29, 9 S.Ct. 207 [32 L.Ed. 585]; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 ......
-
Daily v. New Britain Mach. Co.
...Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to States the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 [5 S.Ct. 357, 28 L.Ed. 923] (1885); Lindsley v. National Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 [31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369] (1911); Railway Express Agency......
-
French v. Blackburn, No. C-76-52-WS.
...The provision is not offended if the state action affects all persons similarly situated in like manner. See, e. g., Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 5 S.Ct. 357, 28 L.Ed. 923 (1885). As stated by Justice Frankfurter: "The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or......
-
Parents Involved v. Seattle School Dist. 1, No. 01-35450.
...public education has long been within the control of the states, as part of their traditional police powers. See Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31-32, 5 S.Ct. 357, 28 L.Ed. 923 (1884) (describing the states' traditional police 43. The District has disputed Plaintiff's assertion of signif......
-
Cohn v. GD Searle & Co., Civ. A. No. 74-450.
...Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to the States the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 5 S.Ct. 357, 28 L.Ed. 923 (1885); Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369 (1911); Railway Express Agenc......
-
Larabee v. Dolley, 8,810
...in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment.' 113 U.S. 27, 32 (5 Sup.Ct. 357, 360, 28 L.Ed. 923.)' In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 Sup.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering t......
-
City of Huntington v. State Water Commission, No. 10476
...[137 W.Va. 799] and were not designed to limit, the subjects upon which the police power of the state may be exerted. Barbier v. Connelly, 113 U.S. 27, 5 S.Ct. 641 [28 L.Ed. 923]; [Minneapolis & St. L.] Railway Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 29, 9 S.Ct. 207 [32 L.Ed. 585]; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 ......
-
ARBITRARY PROPERTY INTERFERENCE DURING A GLOBAL PANDEMIC AND BEYOND.
...544 U.S. at 548. (145.) See id. at 540. (146.) See id. at 543. (147.) See id. (148.) See id. (149.) See, e.g., Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1884) (noting that the "[t]he fourteenth amendment" prohibited the "arbitrary spoliation of property"), cited in Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 62......
-
ANTI-MODALITIES.
...partial and partisan judgments about constitutional meaning into the language of a common tradition"). (114.) Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 32 (1885). For a broad overview of this strand of equal protection doctrine, see V.F. Nourse & Sarah A. Maguire, The Lost History of Governance......
-
Constituting Workers, Protecting Women: Gender, Law, and Labor in the Progressive Era and New Deal Years.
...Revised: Lochner and the Origins of Fundamental Rights Constitationalism, 92 GEO. L.J. (forthcoming 2003). (12.) See Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27. 31 (13.) Courts routinely upheld these laws as part of the states' police power to regulate alcohol consumption. Pp. 48-49. (14.) Commonweal......
-
General Citizenship Rights.
...this point in later cases. See, e.g., Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 129, 138 (1874) (Field, ]., concurring); Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (427.) See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. at 113-14,121-22 (Bradley, J., dissenting); see also Bartemeyer, 85 U.S. at 136-37 (Bradley, ]......