State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen
Citations
- 65 Wash. 156
- 117 P. 1101
- 1911 Wash. LEXIS 907
Syllabus
<p>Mandamus — State Warrants — Actions — Pasties Entitled— Questions — Constitutionality of Act. In mandamus to tbe state auditor to compel the auditing of a state warrant, the auditor may raise the question of the constitutionality of the act authorizing the warrant and requiring its payment; his duty to conserve public funds constituting a sufficient interest.</p> <p>Constitutional Law — Liberty to Contract — Regulation of Occupations— Public Policy — Workingmen’s Compensation. The workingmen’s compensation act, Laws 1911, p. 345, which requires employers in extra hazardous employments to contribute fixed sums based upon their pay rolls to create a fund to reimbuse all employees injured in such employments, without regard to negligence or common law liability therefor, and provides that no employer shall exempt himself from the burden or waive the benefits of the act by any contract or regulation, and that any such contract or regulation shall be void pro tanto, is not unconstitutional as interfering with the right of contract; since “liberty” to contract is not absolute, and means absence from arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulation and prohibition enforced in the interests of the community by public policy.</p> <p>Constitutional Law — Due Process of Law — Regulation of Occupations- — Workingmen's Compensation Act — Police Power. Art. 1, § 3, of the state constitution and the 14th amendment to the Federal constitution, which provide that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law, are not violated by the workingmen’s compensation act, Laws 1911, p. 345, in that it creates a liability without fault on the part of employers in extra hazardous employments to contribute fixed sums based upon their pay rolls to create a fund to reimburse all employees injured in such employments without regard to negligence or common law liability therefor, and also takes the property of one employer to pay the obligations of another; since
Judges: Chadwick, Fullerton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
100 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. GarciaTexas Supreme Court· 1995-02-09· cited 840×
- Murphy v. EdmondsCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1992-02-07· cited 192×
- Aetna Life Insurance v. Washington Life & Disability Insurance Guaranty Ass'nWashington Supreme Court· 1974-03-21· cited 143×
- Amunrud v. Board of AppealsWashington Supreme Court· 2006-09-21· cited 143×
- Markham Advertising Co. v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 1968-03-26· cited 141×
- John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood CenterWashington Supreme Court· 1991-11-14· cited 141×
- Lenci v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court· 1964-01-30· cited 133×
- Stertz v. Industrial Insurance CommissionWashington Supreme Court· 1916-06-20· cited 129×
- State v. BlakeWashington Supreme Court· 2021-02-25· cited 120×
- Guimont v. ClarkeWashington Supreme Court· 1993-06-10· cited 114×
- State ex rel. Linde v. TaylorNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1916-02-05· cited 113×
- State ex rel. Brislawn v. MeathWashington Supreme Court· 1915-03-06· cited 90×
- State v. Mountain Timber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1913-10-06· cited 89×
- Manufactured Housing Communities v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 2000-11-09· cited 87×
- Peet v. MillsWashington Supreme Court· 1913-11-28· cited 86×
- Mathison v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1914-07-03· cited 84×
- State ex rel. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Board of EqualizersSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-11-20· cited 78×
- State ex rel. Webster v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court· 1912-01-27· cited 76×
- Greene v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1916-06-06· cited 70×
- Ross v. Erickson Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1916-02-17· cited 69×
Cites
45 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court· 1886-05-10· cited 3,789×
- Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court· 1894-03-05· cited 909×
- Allgeyer v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1897-03-01· cited 582×
- Noble State Bank v. HaskellSupreme Court· 1911-01-03· cited 496×
- Gundling v. ChicagoSupreme Court· 1900-04-09· cited 310×
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. MatthewsSupreme Court· 1899-04-17· cited 271×
- Ohio Oil Company v. IndianaSupreme Court· 1900-04-09· cited 254×
- Frisbie v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1895-03-18· cited 244×
- Case of the State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds. Railroad Company v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1873-03-10· cited 153×
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. MathewsSupreme Court· 1897-01-04· cited 131×
- Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co.Supreme Court· 1897-04-26· cited 114×
- State ex rel. Mullen v. DohertyWashington Supreme Court· 1897-02-01· cited 80×
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HerrickSupreme Court· 1888-04-30· cited 73×
- State v. CassidySupreme Court of Minnesota· 1875-12-09· cited 73×
- Lemieux v. Young, TrusteeSupreme Court· 1909-01-04· cited 64×
- McConihay v. WrightSupreme Court· 1887-04-11· cited 59×
- Hindman v. BoydWashington Supreme Court· 1906-02-26· cited 45×
- Kidd, Dater & Price Co. v. Musselman Grocer Co.Supreme Court· 1910-05-16· cited 42×
- Offield v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court· 1906-12-03· cited 39×
- Hall v. West & Slade Mill Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1905-08-02· cited 39×
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.