Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

Read a random definition: cognatio

A quick definition of Muller v. Oregon (1908):

Muller v. Oregon (1908) was a court case where the U.S. Supreme Court decided if a state could limit the number of hours a woman could work. The case was about a laundry business owner who made a female employee work more than ten hours in a day, which was against an Oregon law. The Court found that the law was okay because the state had a good reason to protect women. This decision led to other laws about work conditions, but it was overturned later on.

A more thorough explanation:

Muller v. Oregon (1908) was a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court that dealt with whether a state could limit the amount of hours a woman could work while not also limiting the hours of men.

Curt Muller owned a laundry business and required a female employee to work more than ten hours in a single day. This conflicted with an Oregon law that allowed for a maximum of ten hour workdays for women who worked in mechanical establishments, factories, and laundries. Muller was convicted for violating this law and fined $10.

The example shows how Muller violated an Oregon law that limited the amount of hours a woman could work. This law was put in place to protect women from being overworked and to ensure their safety in the workplace.

The decision in Muller v. Oregon resulted in other state laws related to wages, work hours, and work conditions. The Court found that the law was constitutional, stating that the Oregon legislature had a compelling interest in protecting women. The decision was later overturned in the 1923 case of Adkins v. Children’s Hospital.

Mugging | Multidistrict Litigation

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:06
it means you will not be rejected today and may be accepted or WL in the future
Just got my Michigan rejection
BookwormBroker
16:10
same
RoaldDahl
16:10
@HopefullyInLawSchool: what if i already got rejected. does it mean anything
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:12
@RoaldDahl: Likely not however it could mean nothing
RoaldDahl
16:15
So if it means nothing does that mean something?
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.