Smith v. Texas
Citations
- 233 U.S. 630
- 34 S. Ct. 681
- 58 L. Ed. 1129
- 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1207
Syllabus
<p>Life, liberty, property and equal protection of the laws as grouped to-, gether in the Constitution are so related that the deprivation of any one may lessen or extinguish the value of the others.</p> <p>In so far as a man is deprived of the right to labor, his liberty is restricted, his capacity to earn wages and acquire property is lessened, and he is denied the protection which the law affords those who are permitted to work.</p> <p>Liberty means more than freedom from servitude; and the constitutional guarantee is an assurance that the citizen shall be protected in the right to use his powers of mind and body in any lawful calling.</p> <p>A State may prescribe qualifications and require an examination to test the fitness of any person to engage, or remain, in the public calling.</p> <p>While the State may legislate in regard to the fitness of persons privately employed in a business in which public health and safety are concerned, the tests and prohibitions must be enacted with reference to such business, and not so as to unlawfully interfere with private business or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133.</p> <p>Arbitrary tests by which competent persons are excluded from lawful employment must be avoided in state regulations of employment in private business affecting public health and safety. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465.</p> <p>The statute of Texas of 1909 prohibiting any person from acting as a conductor on a railroad train without having for two years prior thereto worked as a brakeman or conductor of a freight train and ' prescribing no other qualifications, excludes the whole body of the public from the right to secure employment as conductors and amounts, as to persons competent to fill the position but who have not the specified qualification, to a denial of the equal protection of the law.</p> <p>A'State cannot, in permitting certain competent persons to accept a specified private emp
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “If the service is public, the state may prescribe qualifications and require an examination to test the fitness of any person to engage in or remain in the public calling.”
- “In so far as a man is deprived of the right to labor, his liberty is restricted, his capacity to earn wages and acquire property is lessened, and he is denied the protection which the law affords those who are permitted to work.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Holmes, Lamar
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
56 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSupreme Court· 1976-06-25· cited 1,999×
- Vance v. BradleySupreme Court· 1979-02-22· cited 1,449×
- Marsh USA Inc. v. CookTexas Supreme Court· 2011-12-16· cited 159×
- John E. Raper v. David J. LuceyFirst Circuit· 1973-12-11· cited 106×
- Graves v. MinnesotaSupreme Court· 1926-11-22· cited 105×
- William C. Bigby, and Maurice Thoele, Intervening v. City of Chicago and Chicago Police DepartmentSeventh Circuit· 1985-07-01· cited 103×
- Endler v. SchutzbankCalifornia Supreme Court· 1968-01-26· cited 85×
- Blumenthal v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court· 1962-01-18· cited 75×
- Keenan v. Board of Law Examiners of State of NCE.D. North Carolina· 1970-10-02· cited 74×
- Wall v. KingFirst Circuit· 1953-07-31· cited 49×
- Pigg v. BrockmanIdaho Supreme Court· 1957-07-18· cited 41×
- Conservatorship of Valerie N.California Supreme Court· 1985-10-21· cited 40×
- Allen v. StateNevada Supreme Court· 1984-02-24· cited 37×
- Poe v. MenghiniD. Kansas· 1972-03-13· cited 34×
- United Interchange, Inc. v. SpellacySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1957-12-03· cited 27×
- State v. CroweSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1917-06-04· cited 27×
- Pierce v. KingE.D. North Carolina· 1996-03-07· cited 26×
- Hanson v. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyNebraska Supreme Court· 1955-07-01· cited 20×
- Looper v. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia· 1957-06-10· cited 18×
- Debruhl v. District of Columbia Hackers' License Appeal BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1978-03-09· cited 18×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court· 1894-03-05· cited 909×
- Dent v. West VirginiaSupreme Court· 1889-01-14· cited 764×
- Hawker v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1898-04-18· cited 389×
- Smith v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1888-01-30· cited 341×
- Watson v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1910-05-31· cited 229×
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1888-10-29· cited 159×
- Barrett v. City of New YorkSupreme Court· 1914-01-05· cited 82×
- In Re LockwoodSupreme Court· 1894-05-26· cited 62×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.