Williamson v. Lee Optical
Significance, A Vision Problem In Oklahoma, Substantive Due Process: From Slaughterhouse To Optician's Shop
Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General of Oklahoma
Lee Optical of Oklahoma
That an Oklahoma law, which prohibited persons other than licensed optometrists and ophthalmologists from fitting lenses for eyeglasses, did not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
James C. Harkin, Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Dick H. Woods
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas (writing for the Court), Felix Frankfurter, Sherman Minton, Stanley Forman Reed, Earl Warren
None (John Marshall Harlan II did not participate)
Date of Decision
28 March 1955
Upheld the power of the legislatures to make state laws regulating business, and declared that "The day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws . .. "
Keynes, Edward. Liberty, Property, and Privacy: Toward a Jurisprudence of Substantive Due Process. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996.
- Yates v. United States - Significance, Advocating Government Overthrow, Further Readings
- Williams v. Lee - A Question Of Jurisdiction, The Treaty Of 1868
- Williamson v. Lee Optical - Significance
- Williamson v. Lee Optical - Further Readings
- Williamson v. Lee Optical - A Vision Problem In Oklahoma
- Williamson v. Lee Optical - Substantive Due Process: From Slaughterhouse To Optician's Shop
- Williamson v. Lee Optical - "the Day Is Gone . . . "
- Williamson v. Lee Optical - Impact
- Williamson v. Lee Optical - Related Cases
- Williamson v. Lee Optical - Substantive Due Process
- Other Free Encyclopedias