The Employers'liability Cases
Citations
- 207 U.S. 463
- 28 S. Ct. 141
- 52 L. Ed. 297
- 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1412
Syllabus
<p>In testing the constitutionality of -an act of Congress this court confines itself to the power of Congress to pass the act and may not consider any real dr imaginary evils arising from its execution.</p> <p>Under the grant given by the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce and the authority given -to use all means appropriate to the exercise of the powers conferred, Congress has power to regulate the relation of master and servant to the extent that such regulations are confined solely to interstate commerce.</p> <p>An act addressed to all common carriers engaged in interstate commerce, and imposing a liability upon- them in favor of any of their employés, without qualification or restriction as; t'o> the nature of the business at the time of the injury, of necessity includes subjects wholly outside of the power of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution.</p> <p>The legislative power of Congress over the District of Columbia and the Territories is plenary and does not depend upon the special grants of power, such as the commerce clause of the Constitution.</p> <p>To restrict a general act of Congress relating to common carriers, by interpretation to interstate commerce so as to validate it as to the carriers in the several States, would unduly restrict it as to carriers in the District of Columbia and the Territories.</p> <p>While it is the duty of this court to so,.construe an act of Congress as to render it constitutional if it can be lawfully done, an ambiguous statute cannot be rewritten to accomplish this result.</p> <p>Where a statute contains some provisions that are constitutional and some that are not, effect may be given to the former by separating them from the latter, but this rule does not apply where the provisions of the statute are dependent upon each other and are indivisible, or where it does not plainly appear that Congress would have enacted the constitutional legislation without the unconstitutional provisions.</p> <p>O
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- the first employer liability case
- the first employer liability case
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Holmes, White, Peckham, Moody, Harlan, Day
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
213 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. LopezSupreme Court· 1995-04-26· cited 3,052×
- The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. ShipmanFifth Circuit· 1969-04-07· cited 2,445×
- Crowell v. BensonSupreme Court· 1932-02-23· cited 1,799×
- United States v. MorrisonSupreme Court· 2000-05-15· cited 1,467×
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. AdamsSupreme Court· 2001-03-21· cited 1,312×
- Wickard v. FilburnSupreme Court· 1942-11-09· cited 1,246×
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court· 1916-02-28· cited 1,199×
- United States v. RainesSupreme Court· 1960-02-29· cited 1,174×
- Virginian Railway Co. v. System Federation No. 40Supreme Court· 1937-03-29· cited 1,073×
- Second Employers'liability CasesSupreme Court· 1912-01-15· cited 797×
- Muskrat v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1911-02-20· cited 763×
- Parden v. Terminal Railway of Alabama State Docks DepartmentSupreme Court· 1964-06-22· cited 644×
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. BuellSupreme Court· 1987-03-24· cited 585×
- Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1914-06-08· cited 515×
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. WyomingSupreme Court· 1983-03-02· cited 504×
- Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co.Supreme Court· 1948-06-01· cited 499×
- Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd.Supreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 481×
- Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng.Supreme Court· 2006-01-18· cited 423×
- Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Ex Rel. Virginia State BarSupreme Court· 1964-04-20· cited 396×
- United States v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court· 1911-05-29· cited 356×
Cites
27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court· 1824-03-18· cited 2,543×
- Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1892-02-29· cited 1,398×
- In Re DebsSupreme Court· 1895-05-27· cited 761×
- Ex Parte YarbroughSupreme Court· 1884-03-03· cited 548×
- United States v. REESESupreme Court· 1876-03-27· cited 427×
- Sinking-Fund CasesSupreme Court· 1879-05-18· cited 353×
- Smith v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1888-01-30· cited 341×
- United States v. Ju ToySupreme Court· 1905-05-08· cited 328×
- SHERLOCK v. Alling, AdmInistratorSupreme Court· 1876-11-18· cited 306×
- United States v. HarrisSupreme Court· 1883-01-22· cited 278×
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. MacKeySupreme Court· 1888-04-23· cited 246×
- Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1907-03-04· cited 245×
- The Max MorrisSupreme Court· 1890-11-07· cited 204×
- Hennington v. GeorgiaSupreme Court· 1896-05-18· cited 203×
- New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1897-03-01· cited 178×
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. SolanSupreme Court· 1898-01-17· cited 178×
- Nicol v. AmesSupreme Court· 1899-04-03· cited 172×
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1888-10-29· cited 159×
- Hylton v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1796-03-17· cited 142×
- McGahey v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1890-05-19· cited 121×
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.