366 U.S. 420 (1961) 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 McGowan v. Maryland No. 8 United States Supreme Court May 29, 1961. Appellants, employees of a large department store on a highway in Anne Arundel County, Md., were convicted and fined in a Maryland State Court for selling on Sunday a loose-leaf binder, a can of floor wax, a stapler, staples and a toy, in violation of Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, § 521, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), 8, McGowan v. Maryland - Federal Docket Nº:No. 8:Citation:366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393:Party Name:McGowan v. Maryland:Case Date:May 29, 1961:Court:United States Supreme Court
366 U.S. 420 - McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher . Home. the United States Reports. 366 U.S. Advertisement. 366 US 420 McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher . Supreme Court of the United States. May 29, 1961 [Syllabus from pages 420-421 intentionally omitted] Mr. Harry Silbert, Baltimore, Md., for appellants. BARGAINTOWN v. WHITMAN ::367 U.S. 903 (1961) ::Justia The judgment is affirmed. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, and Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc., v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of MCGOWAN et al. v. MARYLAND - FIRE366 U.S. 420 (1961) McGOWAN ET AL. v. MARYLAND. No. 8. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 8, 1960. Decided May 29, 1961. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. *422 Harry Silbert argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were A. Jerome Diener and Sidney Schlachman.
The court also relied on McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S. Ct. 1101, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1961), but in applying McGowan the court stated that "[n]o objective standard of reference for the term [a bowl] `so small' is offered by the ordinance." Music Stop, Inc. v. City of *1006 Ferndale, 488 F. Supp. at 393. The court also stated that "[c McGowan v. Maryland - Wikisource, the free online libraryrelated portals:Supreme Court of the United States.; McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have secular purpose. Excerpted from McGowan v.Maryland on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. McGowan v. Maryland OyezSeveral employes of a discount department store sold a few items, such as floor wax and loose-leaf notebooks, to customers on a Sunday. By doing so, they violated Maryland's blue laws which only allow certain items, such as drugs, tobacco, newspapers and some foodstuffs, to be sold on Sundays.
The history is recited at length in the opinion of the Court in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 43140 (1961), and in Justice Frankfurters concurrence. Id. at 459, 470551 and appendix. 203 366 U.S. 420 (1961). Decision on the establishment question in this case also controlled the similar decision on that question in Two Guys from Torcaso v. Watkins ::367 U.S. 488 (1961) ::Justia US Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) Torcaso v. Watkins. No. 373. Argued April 24, 1961 Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203; McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420. 333 U.S. at 333 U. S. 213, 333 Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general Waggoner v. Rosenn, 286 F. Supp. 275 (M.D. Pa. 1968) ::JustiaState of Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426, 81 S. Ct. 1101, 1105 (1961).  The skyrocketing increase in hospitalization and medical expense during the past two years alone is evidenced by the fact that the legislative allowance for these items alone leaped from $38,600,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967 to $61,200,000 for the fiscal year
The United States Supreme Court said in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , 81 S. Ct. 1101, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1961) at 425-26:"The standards under which this proposition is to be evaluated have been set forth many times by this Court. Woonsocket Prescription Center, Inc. v - Justia LawMaryland, 366 U.S. 420, 435, 81 S. Ct. 1101, 1110, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1961), Rhode Island appears to have devoted its attention to supplanting § 11-40-1 with chapters 5-23 and 25-1, both amended this session, and both reflecting modern considerations in mandating premium wages for Sunday work and in facilitating effective enforcement by ZAYRE CORP. vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL. - Justia LawMaryland, 366 U.S. 420, 459 (1961), and the latter was adverted to in the Frankfurter opinion and set forth in greater detail by the minority members of the Governor's Special Committee to Consider the Laws Relative to Lord's Day Observance. 1962 Senate Doc. No. 404, 17-27. It is sufficient to state that Massachusetts has had such a law since 1650.
366 U.S. 420 (1961) 81 S.Ct. 1153, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 Margaret McGOWAN et al., Appellants, v. STATE of MARYLAND. GALLAGHER, Chief of Police of the City of Springfield, Massachusetts, et al., Appellants, v. CROWN KOSHER SUPER MARKET of MASSACHUSETTS, INC., et al. TWO GUYS FROM HARRISON-ALLENTOWN, INC., Appellant, v.