Ronald Dworkin called this case the "whipping boy" of constitutional law. In his denunciation of Roe v. Wade, John Hart Ely turned this case into a verb and compared the approach used in this case to a "green pastel redness".
Ronald Dworkin called this case the "whipping boy" of constitutional law. In his denunciation of Roe v. Wade, John Hart Ely turned this case into a verb and compared the approach used in this case to a "green pastel redness". This decision upheld a right previously established by Allgeyer v. Louisiana. In his dissent, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. echoed his earlier opinion in Otis v. Parker with talk of "general propositions", but differentiated the two cases through the "reasonable man" test; that dissent also claimed that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Herbert Spencer's Social Statics". For 10 points, name this 1905 Supreme Court case that struck down a New York state law that regulated the amount of time bakers could work.
Ronald Dworkin called this case the "whipping boy" of constitutional law.
Lochner v. New York [or New York v. Lochner]