Touro Law Review
Abstract
This Article examines the three U.S. Supreme Court opinions authored by Justice Felix Frankfurter that cited the landmark decision in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937). I describe the three Parrish-citing opinions as: (1) “perfunctory”—Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co. (1940) (Frankfurter, J., joined by Black and Douglas, JJ., dissenting); (2) “ugly”—Winters v. New York (1948) (Frankfurter, J., joined by Jackson and Burton, JJ., dissenting); and (3) “good”—American Federation of Labor v. American Sash & Door Co. (1949) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Whatever one might think about the substance of these opinions, there is absolutely no doubt of the following. First, they are classic statements of the jurisprudential principles for which, thanks in large part to Brad Snyder’s biography, Felix Frankfurter (FF) will be principally remembered. Second, each of the three citations of Parrish is true to that 1937 decision, thereby demonstrating FF’s unwavering commitment (as both a lawyer and a jurist) to the progressive belief in the societal value of minimum wage and maximum hours laws. In other words, with regards to West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, FF was the very model of a citation-consistent Democratic Justice.
Recommended Citation
Knowles-Gardner, Helen J.
(2024)
"Courting Citation Consistency: Justice Frankfurter and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,"
Touro Law Review: Vol. 39:
No.
3, Article 9.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol39/iss3/9