Adair v US HW 2-21-08 - February 21, 2008 Professor Gold...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Professor Gold February 21, 2008 ILRCB 201 Adair v. U.S. (b) – homework : Draw an analogy between these cases. Precedent: Holden v. Hardy: Facts: Ohio passed and enforced a statute setting a maximum work hour limit of eight hours. Justification: A state may interfere with liberty of contract to protect the health and safety of labor as a matter of public policy. Result: The statute is constitutional. Consequent: Adair v. U.S. Facts: The United States passed and enforced the Erdman act which outlawed yellow dog contracts. Argument: Similarity: In both cases, government created and enforced legislation that interfered with liberty of contract. Justification: The United States’ may interfere with liberty of contract to protect the interests of labor as a matter of public policy. Conclusion: The statue is constitutional. State your reasons for believing the analogy is sound or unsound. The analogy is unsound because a statute imposing a maximum work hour limit is designed to directly protect the health and safety of workers. In the case at bar, the statute
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/04/2008 for the course ILRCB 2010 taught by Professor Lieberwitzr during the Spring '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 3

Adair v US HW 2-21-08 - February 21, 2008 Professor Gold...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online