Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Hoegh
Supreme Court of Iowa
1Dissent
Garfield, C.J.,
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent.
I. The majority refers to “the flood of authority” it says supports its view that Code sections 553.15 to 553.18 are not within the sphere of the police power and therefore violate due process of law. A dozen cases are cited at the beginning of its Division III as so holding. Many of the decisions cited for this and other propositions are not authority therefor.
For example, the latest of the dozen citations is Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Margetts, 15 N. J. 203, 104 A.2d 310. The majority cites it three times. It does not even consider any…
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Noble State Bank v. HaskellSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.