Lochner v. New York
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Lochner_v._New_York an entity of type: Thing
로크너 대 뉴욕주 사건(Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 45 (1905)) 뉴욕주 입법부는 제과점 점원의 근무시간을 1일 10시간, 1주 60시간으로 제한하는 내용의 주법을 제정하였다. 미국 연방대법원은 근무시간의 제한이라는 수단이 공공복리(公共福祉)의 증진이라는 목적과 합리적으로 연관되어 있지 아니하고, 오히려 제과점 점원과 주인 간의 계약의 자유를 침해한다고 하여 동 주법을 위헌이라고 판결하였다.
rdf:langString
لوشنر ضد نيويورك، 198 الولايات المتحدة 45 (1905)، كان قرارا تاريخيا من المحكمة العليا في الولايات المتحدة التي ترى أن حدود وقت العمل تنتهك التعديل الرابع عشر. وقد تم إلغاء القرار فعليا. ويقتصر قانون ولاية نيويورك ساعات عمل موظفي المخابز على 10 ساعات في اليوم و 60 ساعة في الأسبوع. ورجحت أغلبية من خمسة قضاة أن القانون ينتهك شرط الإجراءات القانونية الواجبة، مشيرة إلى أن القانون يشكل «تدخلا تعسفيا وغير معقول وغير ضروري في حق الفرد وحريته في التعاقد». وقد رفض أربعة قضاة معارضين هذا الرأي، وأصبحت معارضة أوليفر ويندل هولمز الابن، على وجه الخصوص، واحدة من أشهر الآراء في التاريخ القانوني للولايات المتحدة.
rdf:langString
Lochner v. New York, 198 U, S. 45 (1905), ist eine Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshofs der Vereinigten Staaten. Sie gilt im Recht der Vereinigten Staaten als Meilenstein für die Rechtsprechung zum . Der US Supreme Court entschied, dass Arbeitszeitbeschränkungen gegen den 14. Verfassungszusatz verstoßen. Die Entscheidung gilt heute als faktisch aufgehoben.
rdf:langString
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a New York state law setting maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The decision has been effectively overturned.
rdf:langString
Par l'arrêt Lochner v. New York de 1905 (198 US 45), la Cour suprême des États-Unis déclare inconstitutionnelle une législation de l'État de New York limitant les horaires hebdomadaires de travail. Par 5 voix contre 4, la Cour interprétait en particulier le XIVe Amendement et la clause de due process comme impliquant une liberté contractuelle totale, empêchant toute régulation législative de celle-ci. La loi annulée, le Bakeshop Act de 1895, avait limité la journée de travail des boulangers à 10 heures, et la semaine à 60 heures.
rdf:langString
Il caso Lochner contro New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) fu una causa giudiziaria negli Stati Uniti, su cui nel 1905 la Corte Suprema emise un verdetto che segnò una svolta. La controversia riguardava l'orario di lavoro; la Corte suprema sentenziò che una legge che ponesse un limite massimo alle ore lavorate era in violazione del Quattordicesimo emendamento della Costituzione. Nel tempo, successive decisioni della Corte suprema ribaltarono questa sentenza.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
لوشنر ضد نيويورك
rdf:langString
Lochner v. New York
rdf:langString
Lochner v. New York
rdf:langString
Lochner contro New York
rdf:langString
Lochner v. New York
rdf:langString
로크너 대 뉴욕 주 사건
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Joseph Lochner, Plaintiff in Error v. People of the State of New York
xsd:integer
361179
xsd:integer
1115546632
rdf:langString
Holmes
rdf:langString
Harlan
rdf:langString
White, Day
rdf:langString
Fuller, Brewer, Brown, McKenna
rdf:langString
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; 1897 N.Y. Laws art. 8, ch. 415, § 110
xsd:integer
25
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-12
xsd:integer
45
xsd:integer
198
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-24
xsd:integer
1905
rdf:langString
Lochner v. New York,
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-17
xsd:integer
1905
rdf:langString
Joseph Lochner, Plaintiff in Error v. People of the State of New York
rdf:langString
New York State's regulation of the working hours of bakers was not a justifiable restriction on the right of freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of liberty.
rdf:langString
Lochner v. New York
rdf:langString
Peckham
rdf:langString
The case is famous because there is virtually universal agreement among judges and scholars that it was incorrectly decided. More important, it is the case in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the most influential dissenting opinion in the Court's history.
rdf:langString
Lochner, 198 U.S. at 53 .
rdf:langString
Lochner, 198 U.S. at 57, 61.
rdf:langString
Lochner, 198 U.S. at 60–61.
rdf:langString
Lochner, 198 U.S. at 64.
rdf:langString
Lochner, 198 U.S. at 75 .
rdf:langString
Lochner, 198 U.S. at 75–76 .
rdf:langString
Lochner, 198 U.S. at 76 .
rdf:langString
—Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in 2011.
rdf:langString
It is also urged ... that it is to the interest of the State that its population should be strong and robust, and therefore any legislation which may be said to tend to make people healthy must be valid as health laws, enacted under the police power. ... Scarcely any law but might find shelter under such assumptions, and conduct, properly so called, as well as contract, would come under the restrictive sway of the legislature. Not only the hours of employees, but the hours of employers, could be regulated, and doctors, lawyers, scientists, all professional men, as well as athletes and artisans, could be forbidden to fatigue their brains and bodies by prolonged hours of exercise, lest the fighting strength of the State be impaired.
rdf:langString
The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Under that provision, no State can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment unless there are circumstances which exclude the right.
rdf:langString
Every opinion tends to become a law. I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. It does not need research to show that no such sweeping condemnation can be passed upon the statute before us.
rdf:langString
It is impossible for us to shut our eyes to the fact that many laws of this character, while passed under what is claimed to be the police power for the purpose of protecting the public health or welfare, are, in reality, passed for other motives.
rdf:langString
This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain. If it were a question whether I agreed with that theory, I should desire to study it further and long before making up my mind. But I do not conceive that to be my duty, because I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law. ... [A] Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views ....
rdf:langString
Clean and wholesome bread does not depend upon whether the baker works but ten hours per day or only sixty hours a week. ... The [Bakeshop] act is not, within any fair meaning of the term, a health law, but is an illegal interference with the rights of individuals, both employers and employees, to make contracts regarding labor upon such terms as they may think best, or which they may agree upon with the other parties to such contracts.
rdf:langString
The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well known writers, is interfered with by school laws, by the Post Office, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not. The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.
<perCent>
30.0
rdf:langString
لوشنر ضد نيويورك، 198 الولايات المتحدة 45 (1905)، كان قرارا تاريخيا من المحكمة العليا في الولايات المتحدة التي ترى أن حدود وقت العمل تنتهك التعديل الرابع عشر. وقد تم إلغاء القرار فعليا. ويقتصر قانون ولاية نيويورك ساعات عمل موظفي المخابز على 10 ساعات في اليوم و 60 ساعة في الأسبوع. ورجحت أغلبية من خمسة قضاة أن القانون ينتهك شرط الإجراءات القانونية الواجبة، مشيرة إلى أن القانون يشكل «تدخلا تعسفيا وغير معقول وغير ضروري في حق الفرد وحريته في التعاقد». وقد رفض أربعة قضاة معارضين هذا الرأي، وأصبحت معارضة أوليفر ويندل هولمز الابن، على وجه الخصوص، واحدة من أشهر الآراء في التاريخ القانوني للولايات المتحدة. لوتنر هو واحد من القرارات الأكثر إثارة للجدل في تاريخ المحكمة العليا وأعطى الاسم لما يعرف باسم عصر لوشنر. وخلال تلك الفترة، أصدرت المحكمة العليا عدة قرارات تبطل القوانين الاتحادية وقوانين الولايات التي سعت إلى تنظيم ظروف العمل خلال الحقبة التقدمية والكساد الكبير. وانتهت الفترة ب«شركة فندق الساحل الغربي» ضد شركة «ويست كوست» باريش (1937) التي أيدت فيها المحكمة العليا دستورية تشريع الحد الأدنى للأجور الذي سنته ولاية واشنطن.
rdf:langString
Lochner v. New York, 198 U, S. 45 (1905), ist eine Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshofs der Vereinigten Staaten. Sie gilt im Recht der Vereinigten Staaten als Meilenstein für die Rechtsprechung zum . Der US Supreme Court entschied, dass Arbeitszeitbeschränkungen gegen den 14. Verfassungszusatz verstoßen. Die Entscheidung gilt heute als faktisch aufgehoben. Eine Mehrheit von fünf Richtern war der Ansicht, dass ein Gesetz, das vorschreibt, dass die Arbeitszeit der Mitarbeiter in der Bäckerei weniger als 10 Stunden am Tag und 60 Stunden pro Woche betragen muss, gegen die due process-Klausel verstößt, die ihrer Meinung nach ein Grundrecht auf Vertragsfreiheit enthielt. Sie entschied, es bestehe deshalb ein „unangemessener, unnötiger und willkürlicher Eingriff in das Recht und die Freiheit des Einzelnen, Verträge abzuschließen“. Vier Richter lehnten diese Ansicht ab. Die Ablehnung von Oliver Wendell Holmes wurde zu einer der berühmtesten Meinungen in der US-Rechtsgeschichte. Lochner ist eine der umstrittensten Entscheidungen in der Geschichte des Obersten Gerichtshofs, die für die folgende Ära, die namensgebend war. Während dieser Zeit erließ der Oberste Gerichtshof mehrere Entscheidungen, mit denen er Bundes- und Bundesstaatsgesetze für ungültig erklärte, die darauf abzielten, die Arbeitsbedingungen während der Progressive Era und der Great Depression zu regulieren. Diese Zeit endete mit der Entscheidung (1937), in der der Oberste Gerichtshof die Verfassungsmäßigkeit der vom Staat Washington erlassenen Mindestlohn-Gesetzgebung bestätigte.
rdf:langString
Par l'arrêt Lochner v. New York de 1905 (198 US 45), la Cour suprême des États-Unis déclare inconstitutionnelle une législation de l'État de New York limitant les horaires hebdomadaires de travail. Par 5 voix contre 4, la Cour interprétait en particulier le XIVe Amendement et la clause de due process comme impliquant une liberté contractuelle totale, empêchant toute régulation législative de celle-ci. La loi annulée, le Bakeshop Act de 1895, avait limité la journée de travail des boulangers à 10 heures, et la semaine à 60 heures. Cet arrêt est considéré comme l'un des « grands arrêts de la Cour », et donne son nom à l'ère Lochner durant laquelle celle-là s'oppose de façon constante, et jusqu'à la fin des années 1930, à toute régulation de l'économie et à toute législation un tant soit peu exigeante concernant le droit du travail.
rdf:langString
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a New York state law setting maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The decision has been effectively overturned. The underlying case began in 1899 when Joseph Lochner, a German immigrant who owned a bakery in Utica, New York, was charged with violating New York's Bakeshop Act of 1895. The Bakeshop Act had made it a crime for New York bakeries to employ bakers for more than 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week. He was convicted and ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. A five-justice majority of the Supreme Court held that the law violated the due process clause, stating that the law constituted an "unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract". Four dissenting justices rejected that view, and the dissent of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in particular, became one of the most famous opinions in US legal history. Lochner is one of the most controversial decisions in the Supreme Court's history and gave the name to what is known as the Lochner era. During that time, the Supreme Court issued several decisions invalidating federal and state statutes that sought to regulate working conditions during the Progressive Era and the Great Depression. The period ended with West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of minimum wage legislation enacted by Washington State.
rdf:langString
로크너 대 뉴욕주 사건(Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 45 (1905)) 뉴욕주 입법부는 제과점 점원의 근무시간을 1일 10시간, 1주 60시간으로 제한하는 내용의 주법을 제정하였다. 미국 연방대법원은 근무시간의 제한이라는 수단이 공공복리(公共福祉)의 증진이라는 목적과 합리적으로 연관되어 있지 아니하고, 오히려 제과점 점원과 주인 간의 계약의 자유를 침해한다고 하여 동 주법을 위헌이라고 판결하였다.
rdf:langString
Il caso Lochner contro New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) fu una causa giudiziaria negli Stati Uniti, su cui nel 1905 la Corte Suprema emise un verdetto che segnò una svolta. La controversia riguardava l'orario di lavoro; la Corte suprema sentenziò che una legge che ponesse un limite massimo alle ore lavorate era in violazione del Quattordicesimo emendamento della Costituzione. Nel tempo, successive decisioni della Corte suprema ribaltarono questa sentenza. Nello specifico, il caso verteva sull'orario di lavoro dei panettieri: nello Stato di New York era previsto per legge che tutte le forme di lavoro subordinato, per tutte le categorie di lavoratori, dovessero essere di non più di 10 ore giornaliere e di 60 ore settimanali. La Corte suprema, con una decisione presa a maggioranza costituita da cinque giudici, stabilì l'incostituzionalità di tale legge, dichiarando che questa disposizione fosse contraria alla due process clause del XIV emendamento, norma che protegge la libertà e la proprietà degli individui da interferenze ingiustificate; gli altri quattro giudici dissentirono. Emblematica fu l'opinione di minoranza (dissenting opinion) del giudice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Il caso Lochner fu uno dei più importanti nella storia della Corte Suprema, segnando l'inizio della cosiddetta "era Lochner", una fase nella quale si incominciò a cambiare completamente opinione riguardo all'interventismo statale nell'economia: a partire da quell'evento infatti la Corte pose come priorità assoluta il principio della libertà individuale, sia in chiave economica che sociale. Moltissime decisioni sulle leggi che disciplinavano il salario minimo o stabilivano condizioni minime di lavoro furono quasi del tutto abolite, anche in periodi storici delicati quali la grande depressione degli anni 1920-1930, nei quali si tendeva a una maggiore regolazione dei mercati.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
34150
