Statements (60)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Analyzed in law schools
Relevant to discussions on federalism Critiqued by legal scholars Discussed in law reviews Analyzed for its constitutional implications Used as a case study in constitutional law Implications for federal regulation |
| gptkbp:case_interpretation |
Interpreted in various legal contexts
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
gptkb:No._1
Summary available in legal textbooks Documented in Supreme Court archives Documented in legal history books |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Unconstitutional ruling
5-4 decision Influenced public policy debates Impact on future legislation Impact on child labor laws Justice William Howard Taft |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Important in the history of labor law
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil case
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
1918-05-15 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.
|
| gptkbp:doctrine |
Dual federalism
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_states |
States' rights
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Progressive Era reforms
|
| gptkbp:historical_impact |
Set back child labor reform efforts
|
| gptkbp:historical_significance |
Reflects tensions between state and federal power
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Hammer v. Dagenhart
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Labor rights
|
| gptkbp:influenced_by |
Public opinion on child labor
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
Hammer
Dagenhart |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
Frequently referenced in legal arguments
247 U. S. 251 (1918) |
| gptkbp:is_countered_by |
gptkb:United_States_v._Darby_Lumber_Co.
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Judicial review of federal laws
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:United_States_federal_law
|
| gptkbp:legacy |
Legacy in labor rights history
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Context of early 20th century America
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Judicial conservatism
Framework for future labor laws |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Child labor laws
Interstate commerce does not include production |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Struck down federal regulation of child labor
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Commerce Clause interpretation
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Fair_Labor_Standards_Act
Constitutional law case |
| gptkbp:modern_relevance |
gptkb:Constitution
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Declared the Keating-Owen Act unconstitutional
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Subsequent child labor legislation
Influenced future Supreme Court cases |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Controversial decision
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:United_States_v._Darby_Lumber_Co.
|
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:Keating-Owen_Child_Labor_Act
|
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Discussed in legal journals
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Limited federal power over interstate commerce
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Keating–_Owen_Child_Labor_Act
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|