Olsen v. Nebraska

Olsen v. Nebraska
Argued April 8, 9, 1941
Decided April 28, 1941
Full case name Olsen v. Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., Inc.
Docket nos. 671
Citations 313 U.S. 236 (more)
Prior history State ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Ass'n v. Kinney, 138 Neb. 574, 293 N.W. 393.
Procedural history On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nebraska
Holding
A Nebraska statute restricting employment agencies from collecting more than ten percent of the salary of individuals for whom the agency obtained employment is constitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Harlan F. Stone · Owen Roberts
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy
Case opinions
Majority Douglas, joined by Hughes, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Murphy
McReynolds took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Ribnik v. McBride, 277 U.S. 350 (1928)

Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U.S. 236 (1941), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Supreme Court of Nebraska erred when it struck down a state statute that limited the amount of compensation that private employment agencies could withhold from employees.[1]

Background

A Nebraska statute restricted employment agencies from collecting more than ten percent of the salary of individuals for whom the agency obtained employment.[2] A realtor applied for a license to operate an employment agency, but the Secretary of Labor of Nebraska refused to issue the license because the realtor refused to limit its deductions to ten percent of the salaries of individuals who obtained employment.[3] The realtor filed a lawsuit in an attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus to order the secretary to grant the license.[3] Relying on Ribnik v. McBride,[4] the Supreme Court of Nebraska ruled that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.[5]

Opinion of the Court

In an opinion written by Justice William O. Douglas, the Court held that the Supreme Court of Nebraska should not have relied upon Ribnik v. McBride because "[t]he drift away from Ribnik v. McBride ... has been so great that it can no longer be deemed a controlling authority."[6] Justice Douglas explained that "[w]e are not concerned, however, with the wisdom, need, or appropriateness of the legislation" and concluded that the Court should defer to the state's determinations about the propriety of the legislation.[7] The Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Nebraska remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Nebraska for further proceedings.[8]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U.S. 236, 240, 247 (1941).
  2. ↑ Olsen, 313 U.S. at 243 (citing Neb.Comp.Stat. 1929, § 48-508).
  3. 1 2 Olsen, 313 U.S. at 243.
  4. ↑ Ribnik v. McBride, 277 U.S. 350 (1928).
  5. ↑ Olsen, 313 U.S. at 240-42.
  6. ↑ Olsen, 313 U.S. at 244.
  7. ↑ Olsen, 313 U.S. at 246.
  8. ↑ Olsen, 313 U.S. at 247.

Text of Olsen v. Nebraska is available from:  Findlaw  Justia 

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.