Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Lochner v. New York. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 7 page paper discusses aspects of the case, including what issues the Court thought it needed to address; the reason for its decision; whether it could have decided differently; and what William N. Eskridge would have thought of the decision.
Page Count:
7 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVLochnr.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
citizens of the United States under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. This paper discusses aspects of the case, including what issues the Court thought it needed to address;
the reason for its decision; whether it could have decided differently; and what William N. Eskridge would have thought of the decision. Facts of the Case and the Courts
Understanding of the Issues The U.S. Supreme Court hears very few cases; those that it does hear have come in front of it by various means, most often when a
lower court asks for a review of a decision. When that happens, and if the Court wants to review the case, it issues a Writ of Certiorari and the
case is brought from the lower jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is not interested in listening to a recitation of the facts or rehashing the lower courts decisions; it assumes
that the work was done competently and the verdict rendered correct. What the Supreme Court looks for are cases involving points of Constitutional law, since it is the official
interpreter of such laws. In this case, the defendant was indicted because one of his employees was "required and permitted ... to work more than sixty hours in one week"
(Findlaw, 2005). The employee worked as a baker, and baking at that time was a dangerous occupation: bakers inhaled quantities of flour dust, which presented a grave health
risk. At the time of the offense, Section 110 of the New York State labor law said that no employee was required or permitted "to work in bakeries more
than sixty hours in a week, or ten hours a day"; such work is "not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State, but an unreasonable, unnecessary
...