Holden v. Hardy
Significance, Utah Limits The Miner's Workday, "a Progressive Science", Miners And Bakers
That a Utah state law limiting mine and smelter workers to an eight-hour day was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, because it deprived both employers and their workers of their right to make contracts and so denies them the equal protection of the law.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Jeremiah M. Wilson
Chief Defense Lawyer
Charles J. Pearce
Justices for the Court
Henry Billings Brown (writing for the Court), Melville Weston Fuller, Horace Gray, John Marshall Harlan I, Joseph McKenna, George Shiras, Jr., Edward Douglass White
David Josiah Brewer, Rufus Wheeler Peckham
Date of Decision
28 February 1898
That the Utah law was not unconstitutional, but rather was a valid use of the state's "police power" since the federal government has the right to preserve the public health, and since working long hours in a mine or smelter is patently unhealthy, the law is valid.
- Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
- Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908).
- Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917).
- Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).
- Morehead v. New York, 298 U.S. 587 (1936).
- West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
- Hurtado v. California - Significance, The Right To Be Indicted, "ancient Established Law", "incapable Of Progress Or Improvement"
- Haymarket Trial: 1886 - Chicago: Hotbed Of Radicalism, Police Arrest Eight Anarchists, Suggestions For Further Reading
- Holden v. Hardy - Further Readings
- Holden v. Hardy - Significance
- Holden v. Hardy - Utah Limits The Miner's Workday
- Holden v. Hardy - "a Progressive Science"
- Holden v. Hardy - Miners And Bakers
- Other Free Encyclopedias