Lampley v State

Annotate this Case

Lampley v State
1946 OK CR 23
166 P.2d 450
82 Okl.Cr. 100
Decided: 02/20/1946
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

The syllabus in the case of L. E. Lampley v. State, 82 Okla. Cr. 95, 166 P.2d 445, is adopted as the syllabus in this case.

1. Master and Servant-Statute Limiting Hours of Work of Women to Nine Hours a Day Applicable to Hotels and Restaurants. 40 O. S. 1941 § 81, provides that no female shall be employed or permitted to work in any hotel or restaurant more than nine hours in any one day, nor more than 54 hours in any one week.

2. Appeal and Error-Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Judgment and Sentence. The judgment and sentence will not be set aside where the evidence is conflicting, and there is substantial evidence to support the same.

3. Master and Servant-Evidence not Such as to Bring Case Under Exception Provided by Statute, 40 O. S. 1941 § 82. Record examined, and found that the evidence was not such as to come within the exception provided by 40, O. S. 1941 § 82, which provides: "That in case of emergency in hotels and restaurants, females may work a maximum of ten hours during the 24 with their consent; such females to be paid not less than double their regular compensation for such extra time."

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; Carter Smith, Judge.

L. E. Lampley was convicted of the crime of violating the nine-hour labor law as applied to female employees, and he appeals. Affirmed.

S. E. Dunn, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Dixie Gilmer, Co. Atty., of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

BAREFOOT, J. Defendant, L. E. Lampley, was charged in the court of common pleas of Tulsa county with the offense of requiring and permitting one Joan Ward, a female person, to work in his restaurant in the city of

Page 101

Tulsa More than nine hours, to-wit: 12 hours, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., on the 13th day of August, 1943. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and costs, and has appealed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.