Barrett v. Indiana
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP INDIANA. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of the statute of Indiana prescribing the width of entries in bituminous coal mines, are stated in the opinion. The act of March 9, 1907, is in conflict with § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It denies the equal protection of the law to the person or persons engaged in the mining of coal in certain districts of the State.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP INDIANA. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of the statute of Indiana prescribing the width of entries in bituminous coal mines, are stated in the opinion. The act of March 9, 1907, is in conflict with § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It denies the equal protection of the law to the person or persons engaged in the mining of coal in certain districts of the State. It grants special privileges to another class of citizens engaged in mining coal in what is known as the block coal district, and denies these…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Day
The plaintiff in error was-convicted in a Circuit Court of Indiana of the violation of a statute of that State requiring entries in certain coal mines to be of not less than a pre scribed width. The case was twice before the Supreme Court of Indiana. State v. Barrett, 172 Indiana, 169; Barrett v. State, 93 N. E. Rep. 543. From the judgment in the latter case, affirming the conviction, a writ of error was prosecuted. The assignments of error raise the question of the validity of the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The statute provides (Burns’…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Jacobson v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Gundling v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. MaySupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Watson v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Silver v. SilverSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Patsone v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Miller v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.