Tyson & Brother v. Banton
Tyson & Brother v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927), is a US Supreme Court case, concerning the constitutionality of the State of New York imposing restrictions on the price of resold theatre tickets. It has been reversed but is notable for the dissent of Oliver Wendell Holmes.
| Tyson & Brother v. Banton | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 6–7, 1926 Decided February 28, 1927 | |
| Full case name | Tyson & Brother v. Banton |
| Citations | 273 U.S. 418 (more) 47 S. Ct. 426; 71 L. Ed. 718; 1927 U.S. LEXIS 707 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sutherland, joined by Taft, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler |
| Dissent | Holmes, joined by Brandeis |
| Dissent | Stone, joined by Holmes, Brandeis |
| Dissent | Sanford |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Background
A New York state statute limited the resale price of theatre tickets to fifty cents over the initial box office price.
Opinion of the Court
The majority declared the statute was unconstitutional on grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment, but Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Harlan F. Stone, and Edward T. Sanford dissented.
gollark: You can use maths to make useful predictions, in combination with physics (based on maths).
gollark: Mathematics provides better models of reality than god.
gollark: bee you.
gollark: The [HG]Tech™ Standard Reality Scale®.
gollark: Or you could have a universe where that is the correct way to model it, probably maybe *somehow*.
References
External links
- Text of Tyson & Brother v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.