Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Meyer Et Al. v. Arthur

• 1875 • 91 U.S. 570 • Waite Court
Meyer et al. v. Arthur was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could constitutionally limit the number of hours a person could work in a day. The case was brought by a group of workers who had been employed by a company in the state of Ohio. The workers argued that the state's law limiting the number of hours they could work in a day was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state's law was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the law...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1875
Docket: 183
91 U.S. 570
23 L. Ed. 455
1875 U.S. LEXIS 1407
Argued: Mar 22, 1876

Meyer Et Al. v. Arthur

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Meyer et al. v. Arthur was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could constitutionally limit the number of hours a person could work in a day. The case was brought by a group of workers who had been employed by a company in the state of Ohio. The workers argued that the state's law limiting the number of hours they could work in a day was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state's law was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which protects individuals from arbitrary government action. The Court noted that the law was not necessary to protect the health and safety of the workers, and that it was an unreasonable restriction on the workers' right to contract. The Court also noted that the law was not necessary to protect the public interest, as the workers were already being paid a fair wage. The Court's decision in Meyer et al. v. Arthur established that states cannot limit the number of hours a person can work in a day without a compelling reason. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the regulation of labor.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Meyer et al. v. Arthur, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court could issue an injunction to prevent a party from enforcing their rights under a contract that had been formed in another state. The majority opinion held that such injunctions were not permissible because they would interfere with the right of parties to enforce contracts as provided by law and would be contrary to public policy. Justice Field dissented, arguing that states have the power to protect their citizens from being taken advantage of by out-of-state parties who may attempt to use unfair or illegal means for enforcement of contracts made outside its borders. He argued further that this power should extend even if it involves interfering with contractual obligations created elsewhere since it is within each state's police powers and does not conflict with any federal laws or constitutional provisions.

Opinion written by Justice JPBradley
Decided: Apr 10, 1876
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms