Holding: State did not overstep its police powers. Why:
(1) Public interest not limited to utilities or monopolies (Lochner)
(2) Presumption that states have the right to impose regulations on businesses, including price fixing, and that the regulations were properly enacted.
New Policy (Holmes-type): Price control is unconstitutional only if arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the Legislature is free to adopt, and hence an unnecessary or unwarranted interference with individual. Due Process only demands that the measure not be arbitrary or capricious. This case rejects the distinction between industry clothed and not clothed in the public interest.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Supreme Court Cases and are similar to What was the holding in the Nebbia v. New York (1934) case?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.