| 词条 | Olsen v. Nebraska |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Olsen v. Nebraska |ArgueDate=April 8, 9 |ArgueYear=1941 |DecideDate=April 28 |DecideYear=1941 |FullName=Olsen v. Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., Inc. |USVol=313 |USPage=236 |ParallelCitations=61 S. Ct. 862; 85 L. Ed. 1305 |Docket=671 |OpinionAnnouncement= |OralArgument= |Prior=State ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Ass'n v. Kinney, 138 Neb. 574, 293 N.W. 393. |Procedural=On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nebraska |Subsequent= |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. |SCOTUS=1940–1941 |Majority=Douglas |JoinMajority=Hughes, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Murphy |NotParticipating=McReynolds |LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. XIV |Overturned previous case=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] BackgroundA 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 CourtIn 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{{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}1. ^{{ussc|name=Olsen v. Nebraska|volume=313|page=236|pin=240|year=1941}}. 2. ^Olsen, 313 U.S. at 243 (citing Neb.Comp.Stat. 1929, § 48-508). 3. ^1 Olsen, 313 U.S. at 243. 4. ^{{ussc|name=Ribnik v. McBride|volume=277|page=350|pin=|year=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. External links{{caselaw source| case =Olsen v. Nebraska, {{ussc|313|236|1941|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/103522/olsen-v-nebraska-ex-rel-western-reference-bond-assn-inc/ | findlaw =https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/313/236.html | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/313/236/case.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep313/usrep313236/usrep313236.pdf }} 3 : 1941 in United States case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。