Dominion Hotel v. State of Arizona
| Decision Date | 24 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 178,178 |
| Citation | 39 S.Ct. 273,249 U.S. 265,63 L.Ed. 597 |
| Parties | DOMINION HOTEL, Inc., v. STATE OF ARIZONA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Harvey M. Friend, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 265-267 intentionally omitted] Mr. Wiley E. Jones, Atty. Gen., Ariz., for the State of Arizona.
This is an information alleging that the defendant, the plaintiff in error, was engaged in the hotel business and permitted a woman to work in the hotel for eight hours and that the 'said eight hours of work was not then and there performed within a period of twelve hours,' with a denial that the defendant was within the exceptions made by the statute governing the case. The statute provides as follows:
'Provided further, that the said eight hour period of work shall be performed within a period of twelve hours, the period of twelve hours during which such labor must be performed not to be applicable to railroad restaurants or eating houses located upon railroad rights of way and operated by or under contract with any railroad company.' Penal Code of Arizona, § 717.
The defendant by demurrer and otherwise set up that the exceptions in the statute made it void under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as depriving the defendant of the equal protection of the laws. There was a trial and judgment against the defendant which was sustained by the Supreme Court of the State, Arizona.
The Fourteenth Amendment is not a pedagogical requirement of the impracticable. The equal protection of the laws does not mean that all occupations that are called by the same name must be treated in the same way. The power of the State 'may be determined by degrees of evil or exercised in cases where detriment is specially experienced.' Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U. S. 510, 517, 36 Sup. Ct. 440, 60 L. Ed. 771, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 548. It may do what it can to prevent what is deemed an evil and stop short of those cases in which the harm to the few concerned is thought less important than the harm to the public that would ensue if the rule laid down were made mathematically exact. The only question is whether we can say on our judicial knowledge that the Legislature of Arizona could not have had any reasonable ground for believing that there were such public considerations for the distinction made by the present law. The deference due to the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Harris
... ... to justify the particular classification and distinction ... made. Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 39 ... S.Ct. 273, 63 L.Ed. 597 ... 'But ... when a ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
...v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539, 37 S. Ct. 217, 61 L. Ed. 480, L.R.A. 1917F, 514, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 643; Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 39 S. Ct. 273, 63 L. Ed. 597. All that is required in such cases is that the law shall operate alike upon all persons and property similarly sit......
-
Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
... ... the state racing commission, upon the assumed authority of ... statutes that were ... 217, 61 L.Ed. 480, L.R.A ... 1917F, 514, Ann.Cas. 1917C, 643; Dominion Hotel v ... Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 39 S.Ct. 273, 63 L.Ed. 597 ... ...
-
Gorman Young v. Hartford Fire Ins Co Same v. Phcenix Assur Co
...L. Ed. 1400; Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U. S. 426, 438, 37 S. Ct. 435, 61 L. Ed. 830, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1043; Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U. S. 265, 268, 39 S. Ct. 273, 63 L. Ed. 597. The alleged existence of such evils throughout the United States led recently to an inquiry by the National C......
-
REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
...v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 420-23 (1908). (290.) See Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292, 294-95 (1924); Dominion Hotel, Inc. v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 267-69 (291.) See W. Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 398-99 (1937). (292.) See Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U.S. 59,62-63 (1912). (29......
-
The Americans With Disabilities Act in Cyberspace: Applying the "nexus" Approach to Private Internet Websites - Richard E. Moberly
...of these regulations, making the U.S. less competitive in this dynamic sector of the economy"). 265. See Dominion Hotel Inc. v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 269 (1919) ("[T]he inevitable result of drawing a line" is "distinctions [that] are distinctions of degree; and the constant business of the......