| Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 28, 1916 Reargued January 31–February 1, 1917 Decided May 21, 1917 | |
| Full case name | Southern Pacific Company v. Marie Jensen |
| Citations | 244 U.S. 205 (more) 37 S. Ct. 524; 61 L. Ed. 1086; 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1628; 1996 AMC 2076 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Error to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, of the State of New York |
| Holding | |
| State legislation affecting maritime commerce is invalid if it contravenes the essential purpose expressed by an act of Congress, or works material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law, or interfere with the proper harmony and uniformity of the law in its international and interstate relations. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | McReynolds, joined by White, Day, Van Devanter, McKenna |
| Dissent | Holmes, joined by Brandeis, Clarke |
| Dissent | Pitney, joined by Brandeis, Clarke |
| Laws applied | |
Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the geographical extent of state workers' compensation laws. The Court held that the New York Workmen's Compensation Act, as applied to laborers in the New York Harbor, intruded on federal admiralty jurisdiction, and that civil suits arising within this jurisdiction were subject to the common law of the sea. The compensation statute passed by the state interfered with federal power and was therefore unconstitutional.
The case is noted for the dissent written by Justice Holmes, specifically his dicta on the nature of the common law:
- The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified.