Connally v. General Construction Co.
- Decided
- January 4, 1926
- Docket
- 314
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,272 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a law is unconstitutionally vague if a person "of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning" — Opinion No. (2007)
- holding that a law is unconstitutionally vague when people “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning” — Commonwealth v. Simone (2003)
- holding that a statute violates due process for vagueness if “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application” — United Food & Commercial Workers Local 99 v. Bennett (2013)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Sutherland delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit to enjoin certain state and county officers of Oklahoma from enforcing the provisions of § 7255 and § 7257, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes, 1921, challenged as unconstitutional. Section 7255 creates an eight-hour day for all persons employed by or on behalf of the state, etc., and provides “ that not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed shall be paid to laborers, workmen, mechanics, prison guards, janitors in public institutions, or other persons so employed by or on behalf of the State, . . . and laborers, workmen, mechanics, or other persons employed by contractors or subcontractors in the execution of any contract or contracts with the State, . . . shall be deemed to be employed by or on behalf of the State, . . .” For any violation of the section, a penalty is imposed by § 7257 of a fine of not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than three nor more than six months. Each day that the violation continues is declared to be a separate offense. [*389] The material averments of the bill, shortly stated, are to the following effect: The construction company, under contracts with the state, is engaged in constructing certain bridges within the state. In such work, it employs a number of laborers, workmen and mechanics, with each of whom it has agreed as to the amount of wages to be paid upon the basis of an eight-hour day; and the amount so agreed upon is reasonable and commensurate with the . services rendered and agreeable to the employee in each case.
The Commissioner of Labor complained that the rate of wages paid by the company to laborers was only $3.20 per day, whereas, he asserted, the current rate in the locality where the work was being done was $3.60, and gave notice that, unless advised of an intention immediately to comply with the law, action would be taken to enforce compliance. From the correspondence set forth in the bill, it appears that the commissioner based his complaint upon an investigation made by his representative concerning wages “ paid -to laborers in the vicinity of Cleveland,” Oklahoma, near which town one of the bridges was being constructed. This investigation disclosed the following list of employers with the daily rate of wages paid by each: City, $3.60 and $4.00; Johnson Refining Co., $3.60 and $4.05; Prairie Oil & Gas, $4.00; Gypsy Oil Co., $4.00; Gulf Pipe Line Co., $4,00; Brickyard, $3.00 and $4.00; I. Hansen, $3.60; General Construction Co., $3.20; Moore & Pitts Ice Co.,- $100 per month; Cotton Gins, $3.50 and $4.00; Mr. Pitts, $4.00; Prairie- Pipe Line Co., $4.00; C. B. McCormack, $3.00; Harry McCoy, $3.00. The scale of wages paid by the construction company to its.laborers- was stated to be as follows: 6 men @ $3.20 per day; 7 men @ $3.60; 4 men @ $4.00; 2 men. @ $4.40; 4 men @ $4.80; 1 man @ $5.20; and 1 man @ $6.50.
Cite this
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.