Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-xxrs7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T04:32:11.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

State Constitutional Law in 1936–37

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

J. A. C. Grant
Affiliation:
University of California at Los Angeles

Extract

The invalidation and consequent abandonment of the N.I.R.A. did not bring to an end the trends of which it was, in fact, merely a manifestation rather than a cause. Section 7a had its precursors in the Railway Labor Act of 1926, the Norris Anti-Injunction Act of 1932, and similar state laws, and has been carried over in the National Labor Relations Act. The price maintenance provisions of the codes were the result of years of effort on the part of the American Fair Trade League to legalize resale price maintenance contracts. Today, various state Fair Trade Acts go much farther than the codes dared to go in establishing resale price maintenance even apart from privity of contract. Trade associations have continued their efforts to “rationalize” industry through the collection of statistics on capacity, production, sales, and prices, trusting that the courts will permit this to be done through a more liberal interpretation of the anti-trust laws. Pending further national legislation to be built upon the broader interpretation of the commerce power enunciated in the Labor Relations Act decisions, business efforts to set minimum prices have been carried on under a mantle of state and local legislation. Various trades and professions, desiring to carry forward their efforts to standardize minimum working conditions and professional practices in their fields, have also sought the aid of the states and of their local governments. Consequently, much of the work of the state courts during the year 1936–37 concerned the validity of these undertakings. There was also the normal run of cases in the various fields of state constitutional law. As last year (see this Review, Aug., 1936, pp. 692–712), the decisions will be discussed under the following headings: (1) separation and delegation of powers; (2) inter-governmental relations; (3) individual rights: procedural; (4) individual rights: substantive; and (5) fiscal powers. However, the nature of the material has necessitated a complete rearrangement of the subject-matter within each heading.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 U. S. Code, title 45, ss. 151 ff.

2 Ibid., title 29, ss. 101 ff.

3 Brissenden, , “Genesis and Import of the Collective Bargaining Provisions of the Recovery Act,” in Economic Essays in Honor of W. C. Mitchell (1935), p. 29Google Scholar.

4 U. S. Code, title 29, ss. 151 ff.

5 The Fair Trade Laws” (1936), 36 Columbia Law Rev. 293CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., 57 S. Ct. 615 (April, 1937), and accompanying cases.

7 I am indebted to Mrs. G. C. Bell, research assistant in political science, for a preliminary selection of cases for this article. They were chosen from those reported in the advance sheets from May, 1936, to May, 1937. Unless otherwise indicated, the decision was rendered by the court of last resort of the state concerned. In Oklahoma and Texas, decisions of the court of criminal appeals, although a specialized court of last resort, also are indicated.

8 Laws of California, 1933, p. 1969Google Scholar, sustained in Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Superior Court, 55 P. (2d) 495 (Feb., 1936).

9 Laws of Virginia, 1934, c. 357, sustained in Reynolds v. Milk Commission, 179 S. E. 507 (1935), discussed in this Review, Vol. 30, p. 707.

10 General Acts of Alabama, 1935, p. 746Google Scholar. In Mobile v. Rouse, 173 So. 266 (March, 1937), discussed infra, this act was held to violate the state due process clause.

11 Laws of California, 1935, p. 2212Google Scholar.

12 People v. Osborne, 59 P. (2d) 1083, 1085 (App. Dept., Superior Ct. of Los Angeles, July, 1936), holding that the act violates the state due process clause. See infra, p. 676.

13 Maryland Coöperative Milk Producers, Inc. v. Miller, 182 A. 432, 434 (Jan., 1936).

14 Opinions of the Justices, 166 So. 710 (March, 1936). Nevertheless the bill was dropped, as the judges also pointed out that the governor's call of the special session was not broad enough to include liquor legislation.

15 Opinions of the Justices, 166 So. 706 (March, 1936).

16 Rohrer v. Milk Control Board, 184 A. 133 (March, 1936).

17 Rohrer v. Milk Control Board, 186 A. 336, 345 (June, 1936).

18 Opinions of the Justices, 190 A. 713 (March, 1937).

19 Seignious v. Rice, 6 N. B. (2d) 91 (Dec, 1936).

20 Collier v. Astor, 56 P. (2d) 602 (April, 1936).

21 Johnson v. Diefendorf, 57 P. (2d) 1068 (May, 1936).

22 See supra, note 2. The state statutes are collected in 63 P. (2d) 1104, 1106–7 (1936).

23 Opinions of the Justices, 375 Mass. 580, 176 N. E. 649 (1931). The legislature, however, passed the statute.

24 Opinions of the Justices, 86 N. H. 597, 166 A. 640 (1933).

25 Scopes v. Helmor, 205 Ind. 596, 187 N. E. 662 (1933).

26 Dehan v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local, 159 So. 637 (La. App., 1935).

27 State Federation of Labor v. Simplex Shoe Mfg. Co., 215 Wis. 623, 256 N. W. 56 (1934), followed in American Furniture Co. v. Int'l Brotherhood etc., 268 N. W. 250 (June, 1936). And see Fenske Bros. v. Upholsterers' Int'l Union, 358 111. 239, 193 N. E. 112 (1934), certiorari denied, 295 U. S. 734 (1935), and Levering and Garrignes Co. v. Morrin, 71 F (2d) 284 (CCA. 2, 1934), certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 595 (1934).

28 Wallace Co. v. Int'l Assoc. of Mechanics, 63 P. (2d) 1090, and Starr v. Laundry and Cleaners Local, 63 P. (2d) 1104, both decided December 29, 1936.

29 Blanchard v. Golden Age Brewing Co., 63 P. (2d) 397 (Dec, 1936).

30 98 S.W. (2d) 53 (Nov., 1936).

31 In re Tracy, 266 N.W. 88 (March, 1936).

32 Clark v. Austin, 101 S.W. (2d) 977 (Feb., 1937).

33 Smithberger v. Banning, 262 N.W. 492 (1935), discussed in this Review, Vol. 30, p. 695.

34 Johnson v. State, 60 P (2d) 681 (Sept., 1936).

35 Gillum v. Johnson, 62 P. (2d) 1037 (Nov., 1936).

38 Pittsburgh v. Robb, 53 P. (2d) 203 (Jan., 1936), which concerned a P.W.A. grant to the city. The court refused to write “a treatise on the subject,” venturing the opinion that “unctuous repetition or sonorous rephrasing of the dogma” that the legislature may not delegate its power of lawmaking “leads us nowhere.”

37 Howes Bros. Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Con'n., 5 N.E. (2d) 720 (Dec, 1936). Although the original state act was approved August 12, 1935, two days prior to the passage of the Social Security Act, this 1936 amendment may be considered as a qualified reenactment of it.

38 Potter v. City of Compton, 59 P. (2d) 537 (July, 1936).

39 City of Clovis v. Hamilton, 62 P. (2d) 1151 (Nov., 1936).

40 57 S.D. 619, 234 N.W. 610.

41 See this Review, Vol. 30, p. 702.

42 266 N.W. 672 (April, 1936).

43 64 P. (2d) 1238 (Okla. Cr., Feb., 1937).

44 See Borchers v. State, 56 P. (2d) 922 (April, 1936); Bryson v. State, 56 P. (2d) 1198 (April, 1936); Reininger v. State, 60 P. (2d) 629 (Aug., 1936).

45 Greenway v. State, 101 S.W. (2d) 569 (Tex. Cr., Feb., 1937).

46 State v. Gunkel, 63 P. (2d) 376 (Dec, 1936).

47 Greenway v. State, 101 S.W. (2d) 569 (Tex. Cr., Feb., 1937).

48 Rone v. State, 101 S.W. (2d) 1017 (Tex. Cr., Feb., 1937).

49 McLemore v. State, 172 So. 139 (Miss. Feb., 1937).

50 Broom, , Legal Maxims (9th ed., 1924), p. 231Google Scholar.

51 See my The Lanza Rule of Successive Prosecutions” (1932), 32 Columbia Law Rev. 1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Penal Ordinances and the Guarantee Against Double Jeopardy” (1937), 25 Georgetown Law Jour. 293Google Scholar. And see this Review, Vol. 30, p. 700.

52 See Multiple Punishment Under the Double Jeopardy Rule” (1931), 31 Columbia Law Rev. 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Schroeder v. State, 267 N.W. 899, 903 (June, 1936).

54 People v. Herbert, 58 P. (2d) 909 (June, 1936).

55 Adams v. Commonwealth, 92 S.W. (2d) 7 (March, 1936).

56 United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1898).

57 State v. Borowsky, 11 Nev. 119 (1876), discussed in my “Waiver of Jury Trial in Felony Cases,” 20 Calif. Law Rev. 132, 142.

58 61 P. (2d) 300 (Oct., 1936).

59 Ex parte Kortgaard, 267 N.W. 438 (June, 1936).

60 281 U.S. 276 (1930), discussed in 20 Calif. Law Rev. 152.

61 See 20 Calif. Law Rev. 136.

62 Attorney-General v. Montgomery, 267 N.W. 550 (June, 1936). See 20 Calif. Law Rev. 136.

63 1 N.E. (2d) 225 (April, 1936).

64 State v. Dolbow, 189 A. 915 (Feb., 1937).

65 McManus v. Commonwealth, 94 S.W. (2d) 609 (May, 1936).

66 See my Self-Incrimination in the Modern American Law” (1931), 5 Temple Law Quar. 368, 381Google Scholar.

67 Ibid., p. 378.

68 Ibid., p. 386.

69 (No footnote 69) People v. Hoogy, 269 N.W. 605 (Nov., 1936).

71 Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678. One judge dissented.

72 McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 62.

73 Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297. Three judges dissented.

74 State v. Emery, 178 Wis. 147, 189 N.W. 564 (1922).

75 Jelke Co. v. Emery, 193 Wis. 311, 214 N.W. 369.

76 People v. Carolene Products Co., 345 Ill. 166, 177 N.E. 698 (1931).

77 Carolene Products Co. v. McLaughlin, 5 N.E. (2d) 447 (Dec., 1936).

78 Carolene Products Co. v. Thompson, 267 N.W. 608 (June, 1936).

79 Carolene Products Co. v. Banning, 268 N.W. 313 (July, 1936).

80 The classic example is still In re Morgan, 26 Colo. 415 (1899), invalidating a statute similar to the one sustained in Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898). And see this Review, Vol. 29, pp. 616, 621.

81 See Pound, , “Liberty of Contract”, 18 Yale Law Jour. 454 (1908)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Dasch v. Jackson, 183 A. 534 (Feb., 1936).

83 Schneider v. Duer, 184 A. 914 (May, 1936).

84 In view of the fact that it is elementary that the first eight amendments apply only to the national government, the frequency with which they are used by state supreme courts as limitations upon state powers is truly shocking. Of course in the case of “due process” the error is purely technical, as the same result could be reached under the Fourteenth.

85 Scully v. Hallihan, 6 N.E. (2d) 176 (Dec, 1936).

86 291 U. S. 502 (1934), discussed in this Review, Vol. 29, p. 45.

87 See this Review, Vol. 30. p. 707.

88 See ibid., p. 708.

89 Rohrer v. Milk Control Board, 186 A. 336 (June, 1936).

90 Franklin v. State, 169 So. 295 (June, 1936).

91 Miami Home Milk Producers' Ass'n v. Milk Control Board, 169 So. 541 (July, 1936).

92 “Albert v. Milk Control Board, 200 N.E. 688 (March, 1936).

93 Opinion of the Justices, 190 A. 713 (March, 1936).

94 94 See supra, p. 661.

95 State v. Ives, 167 So. 394 (March, 1936). The court divided 3 to 3 on this issue, but one judge concurred in the ruling on other grounds, making the vote 4 to 2 against the statute.

96 City of Mobile v. Rouse, 173 So. 266 (March, 1937). In the intermediate court, a dissenting judge accused his colleagues of “mere rhetorical play upon ringing phrases.” City of Mobile v. Gibson, 173 So. 264 (Ala. App., Feb., 1937).

97 Becker v. State, 185 A. 92 (Del. Super., May, 1936). And see Kent Stores v. Wilentz, 14 P. Supp. 1 (D.C., N.J., March, 1936).

98 People v. Osborne, 59 P. (2d) 1083 (July, 1936).

99 Agricultural Prorate Com'n v. Superior Court, 55 P. (2d) 495 (Feb., 1936).

100 Skaggs v. City of Oakland, 57 P. (2d) 478 (April, 1936).

101 Ex parte Mark, 58 P. (2d) 913 (June, 1936).

102 Ex parte Scaranino, 60 P. (2d) 288 (Sept., 1936). A similar ruling had been rendered in Ex parte Boehme, 55 P. (2d) 559 (Cal. App., March, 1936).

103 Olds v. Klotz, 3 N.E. (2d) 371 (July, 1936).

104 Wilson v. City of Zanesville, 130 Ohio St. 286, 199 N.E. 187 (1935). Two judges dissented.

105 Gillum v. Johnson, 62 P. (2d) 1037 (Nov., 1936).

106 Howes Bros. Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Com'n., 5 N.E. (2d) 720 (Dec., 1936). Certiorari denied, 57 S. Ct. 434 (Feb., 1937). Both this and the preceding case were discussed supra, p. 666.

107 Chamberlin v. Andrews, 2 N.E. (2d) 22 (April, 1936), affirmed by an equally divided court, 57 S. Ct. 122 (Nov., 1936).

108 Johnson v. State, 60 P. (2d) 681 (Wash., Nov., 1936). See the discussion of this case supra, p. 666.

108a Carmichael v. Southern Coal and Coke Co., 57 S. Ct. 868; Stewart Mach. Co. v. Davis 57 S. Ct. 883.

109 People v. Hoogy, 269 N.W. 605 (Nov., 1936), discussed supra, p. 672).

110 Harrison v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Ins. Co., 187 S.E. 648 (June, 1936), reversed by a 5 to 4 vote in Hartford, etc., Co. v. Harrison, 57 S. Ct. 838 (May, 1937).

111 City of Birmingham v. Hood-McPherson Realty Co., 172 So. 114 (Jan., 1937).

112 State v. Huse. 59 P. (2d) 1101 (Aug., 1936).

113 New York City Housing Authority v. Muller, 1 N.B. (2d) 153 (March, 1936).

114 Opinion of the Justices, 190 A. 801, 808.

115 Petroleum Navigation Co. v. Henneford, 55 P. (2d) 1056 (March, 1936).

116 Opinion of the Justices, 190 A. 801, 804.

117 Johnson v. Diefendorf, 57 P. (2d) 1068, 1071 (May, 1936).

118 Pierce Oil Corp. v. Hopkins, 264 U. S. 137 (1924).

119 State v. Simpson, 166 So. 227 (Fla., Feb., 1936), followed in Dunlap Tire and Rubber Co. v. Lee, 171 So. 331 (Dec, 1936); Tolerton and Warfield Co. v. Iowa State Board, 270 N.W. 427 (Ia., Dec., 1936); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Vigil, 57 P. (2d) 287 (N. Mex., April, 1936). In the Simpson case, one judge wrote a forceful opinion demanding that the state court reject the reasoning of the federal Supreme Court and hold such taxes void.

120 Opinion of the Justices, 190 A. 425, 428–9 (Feb., 1937).