In re a Bill Providing That Eight Hours Shall Constitute a Day's Labor
Supreme Court of Colorado
Original Proceeding. The opinion of the court is in response to the following preamble and resolution: “ Whereas, a bill for an act declaring eight hours’ labor, a day’s work, is now pending in the house of representatives of the tenth general assembly; and, “Whereas, there is a difference of opinion among the members of the house as to the legality of such a measure should it nrnvide — that, it should, only apply toJ^Jh^mrs-iynw ployed and working in mines, smelters and…
Read the full summary
Original Proceeding. The opinion of the court is in response to the following preamble and resolution: “ Whereas, a bill for an act declaring eight hours’ labor, a day’s work, is now pending in the house of representatives of the tenth general assembly; and, “Whereas, there is a difference of opinion among the members of the house as to the legality of such a measure should it nrnvide — that, it should, only apply toJ^Jh^mrs-iynw ployed and working in mines, smelters and factories in this stat§~;-----' " “Be it therefore resolved, that the supreme court of the .state is requested to give an…
1Per curiam 1
The question in this instance is accompanied by a copy of house bill No. 191. It will therefore be assumed that the house desires advice with reference to this bill. It does not appear, however, either by the question itself, or the preamble, that the inquiry relates in any way to the constitutionality of the bill as now pending before the house, the first section of which provides :
“ Section 1. Eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s work for all classes of mechanics, workingmen and laborers employed in any occupation in the state of Colorado.”
We infer from the communication that it is…
Also in this document: Per curiam 2.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Low v. Rees Printing Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by10 opinions
- In re MorganSupreme Court of Colorado · 1899
- Charles Green Real Estate Co. v. St. Louis Mutual House Building Co. No. 3Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Animas Mosquito Control DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1963
- People Ex Rel. Dunbar v. Gilpin Investment Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1972
- City of Cleveland v. Clements Bros. Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1902
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.