Question: Lochner v. New York and New York v. Ferber where both handled by who?

Context articles: LGBT rights in New York
Thornton v. United States
New York v. Ferber
Lochner v. New York
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel
Herbert Ferber
Lochner (disambiguation)
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki
Lochner era
Osborne v. Ohio

The U.S. state of New York has generally been seen as socially liberal in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights.
 The advocacy movement for LGBT rights in the state has been dated as far back as 1969 during the Stonewall riots in New York City.
 Same-sex sexual activity between consenting adults has been legal since the "New York v. Onofre" case in 1980.
 Same-sex marriage has been legal statewide since 2011, with the state recognizing domestic partnerships between same-sex couples beforehand since 1998.
 Discrimination protections regarding sexual orientation have also been adopted statewide since 2003.
 While transgender people born in the state can alter their birth certificate before or after sex-reassignment surgery, the practice is not covered by the state statute, and discrimination protections regarding gender identity or expression were not fully recognized statewide until October 2015.
Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that when a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile's occupant, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the officer to search the vehicle's passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest.
 "Thornton" extended "New York v. Belton", ruling that it governs even when an officer does not make contact until the person arrested has left the vehicle.
 "Thornton" also suggests a separate justification for an evidentiary search "when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle."
 541 U.S., at 632.
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) , is a precedential decision given by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity, even if the material was not obscene.
Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905) was a landmark US labor law case in the US Supreme Court, holding that limits to working time violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
 This decision has since been overturned.
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (Coal Act) constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated.
 The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation.
 The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in Penn Central such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action.
("Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City"), The decision thereby moved beyond the traditional notions of equal protection which had been applied to economic regulation since the time of ("Lochner v. New York"), requiring extreme deference to Congress, and applied a regulatory takings analysis to the problem resulting in a much less deferential result.
 While the plurality recognizes that this is not a traditional takings case where the government appropriates private property for public use, they also state this is the type of case where the "Armstrong Principle" of preventing the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.
 ("Armstrong v. United States", 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960)) However, while the plurality seems to invalidate this particular law on takings grounds, the concurrences and the dissents warn of such an analysis as this should actually be examined under substantive due process or ex post facto theories.
Herbert Ferber (born Herbert Ferber Silvers, April 30, 1906 – August 20, 1991) was an American sculptor and painter, born in New York City.
 He began his independent artistic studies in New York in 1926 at evening classes at the Beaux-Arts Institute of Design, while attending Columbia University Dental School.
 In 1930, he attended the National Academy of Design, and that summer he was awarded a scholarship to work at The Louis Comfort Tiffany Foundation in Oyster Bay, New York.
 He also began part-time work as a dentist.
 Impressed by African sculpture, he purchased his first piece of African art in 1931.
 Ferber received his dentistry degree in 1930, and, until the 1950s, he maintained two careers, as Abstract expressionist sculptor and dentist.
Lochner v. New York was a court case.
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir.
 2005), is an important precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the litigation of aboriginal title in the United States.
 Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in "City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York" (2005), a divided panel held that the equitable doctrine of "laches" bars all tribal land claims sounding in ejectment or trespass, for both tribal plaintiffs and the federal government as plaintiff-intervenor.
The "Lochner" era is a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court’s own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies," by using its interpretation of substantive due process to strike down laws held to be infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights.
 The era takes its name from a 1905 case, "Lochner v. New York".
 The beginning of the era is usually marked earlier, with the Court's decision in "Allgeyer v. Louisiana" (1897), and its end marked forty years later in the case of "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish" (1937), which overturned an earlier "Lochner"-era decision.
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990) , is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography.
 In so doing, the Court extended the holding of "New York v. Ferber", 458 U.S. 747 (1982) , which had upheld laws banning the distribution of child pornography against a similar First Amendment challenge, and distinguished "Stanley v. Georgia", 394 U.S. 557 (1969) , which had struck down a Georgia law forbidding the possession of pornography by adults in their own homes.
 The Court also determined that the Ohio law at issue was not overbroad, relying on a narrowing interpretation of the law the Ohio Supreme Court had adopted in prior proceedings in the case.
 However, because it was unclear whether the State had proved all the elements of the crime, the Court ordered a new trial.