Update

You are looking at 1-13 of 13 entries  for:

  • All: New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann x
clear all

View:

Overview

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

Subject: Law

285 U.S. 262 (1932), argued 19 Feb. 1932, decided 21 Mar. 1932 by vote of 6 to 2; Sutherland for the Court, Brandeis in dissent; Cardozo not participating. In New State Ice, the Supreme ...

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann   Reference library

James W. Ely

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2005
Subject:
Law
Length:
334 words

... State Ice Co. v. Liebmann , 285 U.S. 262 ( 1932 ), argued 19 Feb. 1932 , decided 21 Mar. 1932 by vote of 6 to 2; Sutherland for the Court, Brandeis in dissent; Cardozo not participating. In New State Ice the Supreme Court demonstrated its commitment to the protection of entrepreneurial liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . At issue was a 1925 Oklahoma statute that declared that the manufacture and sale of ice was a public business and forbade the grant of new licenses to sell ice except upon a showing of a necessity...

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann   Quick reference

The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2009
Subject:
Law
Length:
311 words

... State Ice Co. v. Liebmann , 285 U.S. 262 ( 1932 ), argued 19 Feb. 1932 , decided 21 Mar. 1932 by vote of 6 to 2; Sutherland for the Court, Brandeis in dissent; Cardozo not participating. In New State Ice, the Supreme Court demonstrated its commitment to the protection of entrepreneurial liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At issue was a 1925 Oklahoma statute that declared that the manufacture and sale of ice was a public business and forbade the grant of new licenses to sell ice except upon a showing of a necessity for ice...

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
285 U.S. 262 (1932), argued 19 Feb. 1932, decided 21 Mar. 1932 by vote of 6 to 2; Sutherland for the Court, Brandeis in dissent; Cardozo not participating. In New State Ice, the Supreme Court ...
Louis D. Brandeis

Louis D. Brandeis  

(1856–1941),became known as the “people's attorney” when, early in his career, without pay he defended Boston citizens against local public utilities. His book Other People's Money (1914) greatly ...
Capitalism

Capitalism   Reference library

Herbert Hovenkamp

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2005
Subject:
Law
Length:
6,469 words

...were the product of regulatory “capture” by special interest groups within the business class. For example, in Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge ( 1928 ) it condemned a statute that required the licensing of pharmacists, designed mainly to protect druggists from cost‐cutting new competitors. In New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann ( 1932 ) it upset a statute that conditioned entry into the ordinary business of manufacturing ice on the applicant's demonstration of “necessity” and inadequacy of existing facilities—another device for protecting existing firms...

Property Rights

Property Rights   Reference library

James W. Ely Jr.

The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2013
Subject:
Social sciences, Politics, Law, History of Law
Length:
7,680 words

...The decision in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann ( 1932 ) confirmed the Supreme Court’s devotion to free-market competition. Oklahoma required a certificate to enter the ice business. The Court emphasized that the practical effect of the certificate provision was to shut out new enterprises and thus foster a monopoly in the existing ice companies. Accordingly, the Court found by a margin of 6 to 2 that the Oklahoma statute unreasonably curtailed the right to engage in a lawful private business in violation of the due process clause. Legislative attempts to...

Brandeis, Louis Dembitz

Brandeis, Louis Dembitz (13 Nov. 1856)   Reference library

Melvin I. Urofsky

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2005
Subject:
Law
Length:
2,111 words

...Depression enacted a licensing scheme that granted ice companies local monopolies, the Court struck it down. One might have expected Brandeis to vote with the majority, but he dissented, and eloquently pleaded with his brethren to allow states to experiment with different plans, no matter how wise or foolish. “If we would guide by the light of reason,” he declared in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932), “we must let our minds be bold.” Thus, during the 1930s, Brandeis voted in most instances to uphold New Deal legislation, even though he privately opposed...

Classical Legal Theory

Classical Legal Theory   Reference library

The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2009
Subject:
Law, History
Length:
4,646 words
Illustration(s):
1

...protesting in dissent that the five-judge majority was exhuming a doctrinal corpse. But a succession of cases in the ensuing decade struck repeated blows at state police power. For example, Jay Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan , 264 U.S. 504 ( 1924 ), barred states from regulating the size of bread loaves, and New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann , 285 U.S. 262 ( 1932 ), prevented states from treating the ice-making business as a public utility. The Taft Court returned enthusiastically to a favorite classical project, confining labor unions. The justices revived the...

Property Rights

Property Rights   Reference library

James W. Ely

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2005
Subject:
Law
Length:
8,441 words

...The decision in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann ( 1932 ), confirmed the Supreme Court's devotion to free‐market competition. Oklahoma required a certificate to enter the ice business. The Court emphasized that the practical effect of the certificate provision was to shut out new enterprises and thus foster a monopoly in the existing ice companies. Accordingly, the Court found by a margin of 6 to 2 that the Oklahoma statute unreasonably curtailed the right to engage in a lawful private business in violation of Due Process Clause. Legislative attempts to set...

Climate Policies

Climate Policies   Reference library

Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2011
Subject:
Science and technology, Earth Sciences and Geography, Social sciences, Environment
Length:
5,898 words
Illustration(s):
1

...[ This article contains two subentries: State Level Policies California Climate Policy ] State Level Policies In the United States, policy action to address environmental challenges most often begins at the state level. Indeed, states function as “laboratories of democracy” where new policy instruments are developed and later adopted on a federal level. It was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who first observed that states function as “laboratories of democracy” in New State Ice Company v. Liebmann 285 U.S. 262, 311 ( 1932 ). States were the...

History of the Court

History of the Court   Reference library

William M. Wiecek, Michael Les Benedict, Melvin I. Urofsky, and Stephen L. Wasby

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2005
Subject:
Law
Length:
28,309 words

...opposing reform legislation. The New Deal under Fire State efforts to regulate business reached the Court in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann ( 1932 ). Oklahoma had attempted to stabilize the ice market by requiring new entrants to secure a certificate of convenience. The majority struck down the bill as exceeding the state's power and denied that ice‐making affected the public interest. Justice Brandeis's dissent is notable for several reasons. First, he painstakingly explored the various economic factors that had led the state to pass the legislation. Second,...

Louis D. Brandeis

Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941)   Reference library

The Oxford Dictionary of American Quotations (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Quotation
Current Version:
2008
Subject:
Quotations
Length:
235 words

...1941 It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizen choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. The quote is often given as: “[states can be] laboratories of democracy.” dissent, New State Ice Company v. Liebmann , 1932 The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. Olmstead v. the United States , 1928 The right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights...

Federalism and LGBT Politics and Policy in the United States

Federalism and LGBT Politics and Policy in the United States   Reference library

Jami K. Taylor, Donald P. Haider-Markel, and Daniel C. Lewis

The Oxford Encyclopedia of LGBT Politics and Policy

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2021
Subject:
Social sciences, Politics
Length:
6,977 words

...partnership went from innovation to injury. N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change , 37 (1), 291–305. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann , 285 U.S. 262 (1932). Obergefell v. Hodges , 576 U.S. 644 (2015). Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services , 523 U.S. 75 (1998). Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins , 490 U.S. 228 (1989). Riverstone-Newell, L. (2017). The rise of state preemption laws in response to local policy innovation. Publius , 47 (3), 403–425. Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 620 (1996). Sellers, M. (2014). Executive expansion of transgender rights: Electoral...

View: