Dominion Hotel v. State of Arizona, No. 178
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMES |
| Citation | 39 S.Ct. 273,249 U.S. 265,63 L.Ed. 597 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 178 |
| Parties | DOMINION HOTEL, Inc., v. STATE OF ARIZONA |
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA.
Mr. Harvey M. Friend, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 265-267 intentionally omitted]
Page 267
Mr. Wiley E. Jones, Atty. Gen., Ariz., for the State of Arizona.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
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
Page 268
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boillot v. Income Guar. Co., No. 19139.
...Evidence, sec. 2567 (a); 132 Wis. 534, 112 N.W. 40, 6 Ann. Cas. 893. (d) Uncertainty of a fact precludes recognition by judicial notice. 249 U.S. 265, 39 S. Ct. 273, 63 L. Ed. 597. (e) Judicial knowledge cannot be resorted to to raise controversies not presented by the record. 6 R.C.L. 1062......
-
Queensboro Farms Products v. Wickard, No. 319.
...Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis, 240 U.S. 342, 357, 36 S.Ct. 370, 60 L.Ed. 679, L.R.A.1917A, 421, Ann.Cas.1917B, 455; Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 268, 39 S.Ct. 273, 63 L.Ed. 597; Louisville Gas Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 41, 48 S.Ct. 423, 72 L. Ed. 770; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ba......
-
Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co Same v. Gulf States Paper Corporation, Nos. 724
...Co., 284 U.S. 151, 159, 52 S.Ct. 69, 71, 76 L.Ed. 214, or where it is most practicable to deal with it, Dominion Hotel Inc., v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 268, 269, 39 S.Ct. 273, 63 L.Ed. 597. It may exclude others whose need is less, New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628, 634, 17......
-
Vornado, Inc. v. Hyland
...were made mathematically exact." Dominion Hotel, Inc. v. State of Arizona, supra (249 U.S. (265) at page 268, 39 S.Ct. (273) at page 274 (63 L.Ed. 597)). * * * Chief Justice Weintraub went on in Two Guys, supra, to say (32 N.J. at 219, 160 A.2d at 275): As stated in Holderman, a discriminat......
-
Boillot v. Income Guar. Co., No. 19139.
...Evidence, sec. 2567 (a); 132 Wis. 534, 112 N.W. 40, 6 Ann. Cas. 893. (d) Uncertainty of a fact precludes recognition by judicial notice. 249 U.S. 265, 39 S. Ct. 273, 63 L. Ed. 597. (e) Judicial knowledge cannot be resorted to to raise controversies not presented by the record. 6 R.C.L. 1062......
-
Queensboro Farms Products v. Wickard, No. 319.
...Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis, 240 U.S. 342, 357, 36 S.Ct. 370, 60 L.Ed. 679, L.R.A.1917A, 421, Ann.Cas.1917B, 455; Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 268, 39 S.Ct. 273, 63 L.Ed. 597; Louisville Gas Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 41, 48 S.Ct. 423, 72 L. Ed. 770; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ba......
-
Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co Same v. Gulf States Paper Corporation, Nos. 724
...Co., 284 U.S. 151, 159, 52 S.Ct. 69, 71, 76 L.Ed. 214, or where it is most practicable to deal with it, Dominion Hotel Inc., v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 268, 269, 39 S.Ct. 273, 63 L.Ed. 597. It may exclude others whose need is less, New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628, 634, 17......
-
Vornado, Inc. v. Hyland
...were made mathematically exact." Dominion Hotel, Inc. v. State of Arizona, supra (249 U.S. (265) at page 268, 39 S.Ct. (273) at page 274 (63 L.Ed. 597)). * * * Chief Justice Weintraub went on in Two Guys, supra, to say (32 N.J. at 219, 160 A.2d at 275): As stated in Holderman, a discriminat......