Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
E140388
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital is a 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a minimum wage law for women in the District of Columbia, marking a key moment in the Lochner-era protection of freedom of contract.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Adkins v. Children’s Hospital canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1228176 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital Context triple: [George Sutherland, notableWork, Adkins v. Children’s Hospital]
-
A.
Doe v. Bolton
Doe v. Bolton is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that, alongside Roe v. Wade, expanded and defined the scope of abortion rights by striking down restrictive state regulations.
-
B.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
C.
Corrigan v. Buckley
Corrigan v. Buckley is a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, paving the way for widespread legalized housing segregation until later overturned in effect by subsequent civil rights rulings.
-
D.
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
-
E.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eisenstadt v. Baird is a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried individuals, significantly advancing privacy and equal protection jurisprudence.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital Target entity description: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital is a 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a minimum wage law for women in the District of Columbia, marking a key moment in the Lochner-era protection of freedom of contract.
-
A.
Doe v. Bolton
Doe v. Bolton is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that, alongside Roe v. Wade, expanded and defined the scope of abortion rights by striking down restrictive state regulations.
-
B.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
C.
Corrigan v. Buckley
Corrigan v. Buckley is a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, paving the way for widespread legalized housing segregation until later overturned in effect by subsequent civil rights rulings.
-
D.
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
-
E.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eisenstadt v. Baird is a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried individuals, significantly advancing privacy and equal protection jurisprudence.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark decision ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
labor and employment law ⓘ |
| citation | 261 U.S. 525 ⓘ |
| constitutionalIssue |
Due Process Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
due process clause of the Fifth Amendment
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1923-04-09 ⓘ |
| dissentingJustices |
Edward T. Sanford
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Louis D. Brandeis ⓘ
surface form:
Louis D. Brandeis
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ⓘ William R. Day NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| era |
Lochner v. New York
ⓘ
surface form:
Lochner era
|
| holding |
a minimum wage law for women in the District of Columbia is unconstitutional
ⓘ
the minimum wage law violated freedom of contract protected by the Fifth Amendment due process clause ⓘ |
| impact |
limited government power to impose minimum wage regulations at the time
ⓘ
strengthened Lochner-era protection of freedom of contract ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
District of Columbia
ⓘ
United States federal law ⓘ |
| languageOfDecision | English ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
freedom of contract
ⓘ
labor law ⓘ minimum wage ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ women’s employment ⓘ |
| locationOfLawChallenged | District of Columbia ⓘ |
| majorityJustices |
George Sutherland
ⓘ
Justice James C. McReynolds ⓘ
surface form:
James C. McReynolds
Pierce Butler ⓘ President William Howard Taft ⓘ
surface form:
William Howard Taft
Willis Van Devanter ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | George Sutherland ⓘ |
| overruledBy | West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish ⓘ |
| overruledByYear | 1937 ⓘ |
| party |
Children’s Hospital
ⓘ
surface form:
Children’s Hospital of the District of Columbia
Jesse C. Adkins NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| recognizedFor |
articulating strong protection for freedom of contract under the Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
invalidating a minimum wage law for women ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Lochner v. New York
ⓘ
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish ⓘ |
| struckDown | District of Columbia minimum wage law for women ⓘ |
| timePeriod | early 20th century United States ⓘ |
| vote | 5–3 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1923 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital Description of subject: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital is a 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a minimum wage law for women in the District of Columbia, marking a key moment in the Lochner-era protection of freedom of contract.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.