Simpson v. O'Hara
| Decision Date | 28 April 1914 |
| Citation | 141 P. 158,70 Or. 261 |
| Parties | SIMPSON v. O'HARA ET AL. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; T. J. Cleeton, Judge.
Suit by Elmira Simpson against Edwin V. O'Hara and others constituting the Industrial Welfare Commission of the State of Oregon. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is a suit the object of which is to have judicially determined the question whether an act passed by the Legislature on February 17, 1913 (Session Laws 1913, c. 62), and commonly known as the minimum wage act, is inimical to the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to section 20, art. 1, of the Constitution of Oregon. The defendants demurred to the complaint. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appeals.
Fulton & Bowerman, of Portland, for appellant. A. M. Crawford, Atty Gen., and Malarkey, Seabrook & Dibble, of Portland, for respondents.
This suit is similar in substance and is brought for the same purpose as the case of Stettler v. O'Hara, 139 P. 743, in which Mr. Justice Eakin, speaking for the court held the act in question to be a valid exercise of the police power, and not in conflict with either the Constitution of the United States or of this state. It is suggested, however on this appeal that in the case of Stettler v. O'Hara before cited, this court did not pass upon the contention raised in the pleadings, and upon the argument, that the minimum wage act is inimical to that portion of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States which provides:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
While this particular clause of the amendment is not specially discussed, it was certainly intended by that opinion to express the conviction of this court that the act in question violated no precept of the fourteenth amendment, which, it will be noted, does not attempt to define the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities therein protected. Having determined in the preceding case that the police power of the state legitimately extended to the right to prevent the employment of women and children for unreasonably long hours or at unreasonably small wages, and that the state had a right to use the machinery of a commission to determine to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Children's Hospital of District of Columbia v. Adkins
... ... but no court has held one invalid. Stettler v ... O'Hara, 69 Or. 519, 139 P. 743, L.R.A. 1917C, 944, ... Ann. Cas. 1916A, 217; Simpson v. O'Hara, 70 Or ... 261, 141 P. 158; Williams v. Evans, 139 Minn. 32, ... 165 N.W. 495, 166 N.W. 504, L.R.A. 1918F, 542; State v ... Crowe, ... ...
-
West Coast Hotel Co v. Parrish
...by the Supreme Court of Oregon in Stettler v. O'Hara, 69 Or. 519, 139 P. 743, L.R.A.1917C, 944, Ann.Cas.1916A, 217, and Simpson v. O'Hara, 70 Or. 261, 141 P. 158. These cases, after reargument, were affirmed here by an equally divided court, in 1917. 243 U.S. 629, 37 S.Ct. 475, 61 L.Ed. 937......
-
Associated Industries of Oklahoma v. Industrial Welfare Commission
...in favor of a similar act of that State. Stettler v. O'Hara, 69 Or. 519, 139 P. 743, L.R.A.1917C, 944, Ann.Cas.1916A, 217; Simpson v. O'Hara, 70 Or. 261, 141 P. 158. In Spokane Hotel case the constitutional question was due process. The employer contended that since the statute failed to pr......
-
Parrish v. West Coast Hotel Co.
...the same as our law--was sustained in Stettler v. O'Hara, 69 Or. 519, 139 P. 743, L.R.A.1917C, 944, Ann.Cas.1916A, 217, and Simpson v. O'Hara, 70 Or. 261, 141 P. 158. These two cases were affirmed without an opinion by equally divided court in Stettler v. O'Hara, 243 U.S. 629, 37 S.Ct. 475,......