How have courts interpreted the principle that no statute is violative of the Constitution when it has a legitimate object?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from Robinson v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist., 245 Cal.App.2d 278, 53 Cal.Rptr. 781 (Cal. App. 1966):

In a high school fraternity abolition case, Lee v. Hoffman, 182 Iowa 1216, 166 N.W. 565, at page 568, L.R.A.1918C, 933 the court applies this principle: 'It is a fair summary of the case law that no statute is violative of the Constitution if it have for its legitimate object anything that may fairly be said to be for the good of the state or promotive of good order, good morals, or the education of the citizen.'

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.

Other Questions

How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)

Does section 125.3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure apply to the construction of the statute, and if so, does the court have jurisdiction to interpret the interpretation of the law? (California, United States of America)

Does the denial of access to the courts by the Department of Justice to defend a civil case against a defendant who is not able to pay for a lawyer to represent him in court constitute a prima facie equal protection violation? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted the principles of 'conspiracy' and 'reasonably foreseeable acts committed in furtherance of the common illegal objective'? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted the estoppel principle as applied to the statute of limitations? (California, United States of America)

How has section 69894.1 of the California Constitution been interpreted and interpreted by the courts? (California, United States of America)

When an agency adopts a new interpretation of a statute and rejects an old interpretation of the statute? (California, United States of America)

How does the Court treat a claim by a defendant that an issue raised and decided in the trial court resulted in constitutional violations? (California, United States of America)

Does a defendant who violates the inmate assault statute necessarily also violate the lesser assault statute? (California, United States of America)

Is section 1001.36 of the California Criminal Code a "stressed interpretation" of the law and, if so, would it be impertinent for the court to place a strained interpretation upon the statute? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted the principle that no statute is violative of the Constitution when it has a legitimate object?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources