1. The legal issue in Stone v. Mississippi (1880) is: Did Mississippi's repeal of the Agricultural, Educational, and Manufacturing Aid Society of 1867 through the Mississippi State Constitution of 1868 violate the contract clause of the federal Constitution? The court in Lochner v. New York 198 US 45 (1905) declared unconstitutional a New York State law limiting the number of hours a baker could work. The Court found that “the State had no reasonable grounds to interfere with the freedom by determining the hours of work for individuals who are free to work as they choose.” Furthermore, “liberty, or freedom to contract, was a fundamental fundamental right protected by the liberty and property provisions of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” “There is no reasonable ground for interfering with the liberty of the person or the right to freedom of contract, by determining the hours of work, in the profession of baking.”3. In the case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish 300 US 379 (1937) the Court ruled that the Minimum Wages for Women Act did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was a valid exercise of Washington State's police power. “The United States Constitution is silent about freedom of contract. It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. By prohibiting such deprivation the Constitution does not recognize absolute and uncontrollable freedom. Freedom in every phase has its own history and connotation. But safeguarded liberty is liberty in a social organization that requires the protection of the law against evils that threaten the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people. Freedom under the Constitution is therefore necessary… half of the document… the lights on the Causby farm constituted “a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land (United States v. Causby (1946) .” Another type of eminent domain that protects the economic freedoms of businesses against arbitrary expropriation is the doctrine of physical trespass. Governments must provide just compensation for placing anything on private property against the owner's will (Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan (1982). ) This doctrine of physical intrusion is still legally valid, the Court has moved away from considering the regulations as a taking imposed on Penn Central for the construction of a terminal did not constitute a taking. The restriction did not inhibit the current business model and provided a reasonable return on investment (Penn Central Transport Co. v. New York (1978).