{"id":492,"date":"2011-08-11T16:11:57","date_gmt":"2011-08-11T20:11:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=492"},"modified":"2011-08-11T18:16:34","modified_gmt":"2011-08-11T22:16:34","slug":"weaver-v-palmer-bros-co","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/weaver-v-palmer-bros-co\/","title":{"rendered":"Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926)"},"content":{"rendered":"
Case Name: <\/strong>Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co.<\/div>\n
Citation: <\/strong>270 U.S. 402 (1926)<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Issue: <\/strong>Whether a Pennsylvania act which prohibited the use of “shoddy” in comfortables violated the due process clause.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0Palmer Bros manufactures about 3 million “comfortables” or bedcovers a year. About 750,000 of these bedcovers are filled with “shoddy.” Shoddy consists of leftover clippings obtained from cutting tables and secondhand shoddy consists of secondhand garments and rags. The bedcovers filled with secondhand shoddy were sold at a lower price. \u00a0The Pennsylvania act in question\u00a0prescribes sterilization of materials if they are secondhand and prohibits the use of new or old shoddy, even when sterilized. The act was purported as a measure to protect health.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Holding:\u00a0<\/strong>The act was ruled unconstitutional.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Reasoning:\u00a0<\/strong>There was no evidence that even in the absence of disinfection or sterilization that shoddy was still harmful. The fact that both parties agree that shoddy may be rendered harmless by disinfection or sterilization shows that the act is unreasonable and arbitrary.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Holmes’ Dissent:\u00a0<\/strong>If the Penn. Legislature “regarded the danger as very great and inspection and tagging as inadequate remedies” they should be able to constitutionally forbid the use of shoddy in order to prevent the spread of disease.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case Name: Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co. Citation: 270 U.S. 402 (1926)   Issue: Whether a Pennsylvania act which prohibited the use of “shoddy” in comfortables violated the due process clause.   Facts:\u00a0\u00a0Palmer Bros manufactures about 3 million “comfortables” or bedcovers a year. About 750,000 of these bedcovers are filled with “shoddy.” Shoddy consists of … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[105,12],"tags":[131,126],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"\nWeaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case brief for Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926) with Justice Holmes' dissent.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/weaver-v-palmer-bros-co\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case brief for Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926) with Justice Holmes' dissent.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/weaver-v-palmer-bros-co\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-11T20:11:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2011-08-11T22:16:34+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/weaver-v-palmer-bros-co\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/weaver-v-palmer-bros-co\/\",\"name\":\"Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-11T20:11:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-08-11T22:16:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Case brief for Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926) with Justice Holmes' dissent.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/weaver-v-palmer-bros-co\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/492"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=492"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/492\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":519,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/492\/revisions\/519"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}