West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
101 later cases cite West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish; 101 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held that West Coast Hotel did not retroactively reactivate Puerto Rico's minimum-wage act for contracts made before the local court reinstated it in 1940, preserving the prospective cutoff for rights acquired under its earlier invalidation decision.
Olazábal v. District Court of Bayamón · Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · filed
Locally this court has expressed its viewpoint in the case of Irizarry v. Rivera Martínez, supra, and we have not been convinced that we should change what we decided in that case. On the contrary, it would be unjust to decide now, in 1944, that the contracts entered into from 1937 to 1940 were not covered by what we decided in the Irizarry case in 1940, and that on the contrary the petitioner has been bound since. 1937, when che Parrish ease was decided, to consider valid our Minimum Wage Act.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit held that West Coast Hotel did not foreclose a distinct equal-protection challenge to a women-only maximum-hours law because that ground of attack had not been adjudicated.
Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Commission · Ninth Circuit · filed
Appellees cite eight additional Supreme Court decisions as so firmly establishing the constitutionality of section 1350 that plaintiffs’ attack thereon must be regarded as insubstantial. ... But in any event most of the above-described reasons for distinguishing Mueller and Miller from our ease are equally applicable with respect to these additional Supreme Court decisions. ... Only the grounds of attack upon a statute which are actually dealt with in a Supreme Court decision are foreclosed to subsequent examination by an inferior federal court. ... Listed in the order in which they were decided, these cases are Riley v. Massachusetts, 232 U.S. 671, 34 S.Ct. 469, 58 L.Ed. 788 (1914); Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U.S. 385, 35 S.Ct. 345, 59 L.Ed. 632 (1915); Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292, 44 S.Ct. 325, 68 L.Ed. 690 (1924); West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 394-400, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703 (1937); United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 125, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L. Ed. 609 (1941); Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193, 67 S.Ct. 261, 91 L. Ed. 181 (1946); Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464, 69 S.Ct. 198, 93 L.Ed. 163 (1948); Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 82 S.Ct. 159, 7 L.Ed.2d 118 (1961).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace