Matter of Application of Miller
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus directed to the Sheriff of Riverside County. The title of the act of March 22, 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 437) is as follows: “An act limiting the hours of labor of females employed in any manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishment, laundry, hotel, or restaurant, or telegraph or telephone establishment or office, or by any express or transportation company; compelling each employer in any manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile…
Read the full summary
APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus directed to the Sheriff of Riverside County. The title of the act of March 22, 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 437) is as follows: “An act limiting the hours of labor of females employed in any manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishment, laundry, hotel, or restaurant, or telegraph or telephone establishment or office, or by any express or transportation company; compelling each employer in any manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile establishment, laundry# .hotel or restaurant, or other establishment employing any female to provide suitable seats for…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The petitioner applies for release from custody on a charge of violating the provisions of the act of March 22, 1911, forbidding the employment of women in certain establishments for more than eight hours in one day, or more than forty-eight hours in one week. (Stats. 1911, p. 437.) The specific charge is that on June 12, 1911, he employed and thereupon required Emma Hunt, a female, to work during that day for nine hours in the Glenwood Hotel, as an employee therein. His contention is that the act is unconstitutional and void.
Three grounds are urged in support of this claim: 1. That the…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Holden v. HardySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Muller v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by94 opinions
- Cal. Drive-In Restaurant Assn. v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Western Indemnity Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Lockard v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- In Re PorterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- City of Los Angeles v. GageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.