Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 U.S. 207 - Atkin v. State of Kansas

Atkin v. State of Kansas’s Empirical Analysis

191 U.S. 207 · 1903

Citation profile

413
cited by 413 later decisions
47
cited 47 times by the Supreme Court
38
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 28 district · 242 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 413 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably Meyer v. State of Nebraska (1923), Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York (1905)

40 federal appellate · 28 district · 242 state decisions — followed in 38 states

990190319101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Barbier v. Connolly · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana · The Conqueror

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 413 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"* * * we can imagine no possible ground to dispute the power of the state to declare that no one undertaking work for it or for one of its municipal agencies should permit or require an employee on such work to labor in excess of eight hours each day, and to inflict punishment upon those who are embraced by such regulations and yet disregard them. It cannot be deemed a part of the liberty of any contractor that he be allowed to do public work in any mode he may choose to adopt, without regard to the wishes of the state. On the contrary, it belongs to the state, as the guardian and trustee for its people; and having control of its affairs, to prescribe the conditions upon which it will permit public work to be done on its behalf, or on behalf of its municipalities. No court has authority to review its action in that respect. Regulations on this subject suggest only considerations of public policy. And with such considerations the courts have no concern. "If it be contended to be the right of every one to dispose of his labor upon such terms as he deems best, — as undoubtedly it is, — and that to make it a criminal offense for a contractor for public work to permit or require his employee to perform labor upon that work in excess of eight hours each day is in derogation of the liberty both of employees and employer, it is sufficient to answer that no employee is entitled, of absolute right and as a part of his liberty, to perform labor for the state; and no contractor for publ”
    23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where ... work is performed shall be paid to laborers, workmen, mechanics and other persons employed by or on behalf of the State of Kansas, or any county, city, township or other municipality of said State.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.