|
gptkbp:instance_of
|
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
|
gptkbp:argued_on
|
1935-12-09
|
|
gptkbp:case_analysis
|
Used in law school curricula
Analyzed in legal textbooks
|
|
gptkbp:case_impact_on_economy
|
Impacted economic recovery efforts.
|
|
gptkbp:case_impact_on_government
|
Changed federal government intervention strategies
|
|
gptkbp:case_impact_on_judiciary
|
Influenced judicial approach to economic regulation
|
|
gptkbp:case_impact_on_legislation
|
Led to revisions in federal agricultural policy
|
|
gptkbp:case_impact_on_society
|
Affected farmers and agricultural workers
|
|
gptkbp:case_number
|
gptkb:United_States_v._Butler
gptkb:No._1
Documented in legal archives
|
|
gptkbp:case_outcome
|
Unconstitutional ruling
5-4 decision
Affected agricultural policy
Struck down key provisions of the Act
|
|
gptkbp:case_significance
|
Key case in the New Deal era
|
|
gptkbp:case_types
|
Constitutional law case
Economic regulation case
|
|
gptkbp:court
|
Nine Justices
|
|
gptkbp:decided_by
|
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
|
gptkbp:dissenting_opinion
|
gptkb:Justice_William_O._Douglas
gptkb:Justice_Benjamin_N._Cardozo
gptkb:Justice_Harlan_F._Stone
gptkb:Justice_Louis_D._Brandeis
|
|
gptkbp:effective_date
|
1936-01-06
|
|
gptkbp:historical_context
|
Response to agricultural crisis
|
|
gptkbp:historical_significance
|
Significant in U. S. legal history
|
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
|
297 U. S. 233
|
|
gptkbp:impact
|
Influenced future Supreme Court decisions
Influenced New Deal policies
|
|
gptkbp:is_cited_in
|
gptkb:297_U._S._233
Referenced in Supreme Court opinions
|
|
gptkbp:is_debated_in
|
Federal vs. state powers
|
|
gptkbp:judicial_review
|
Judicial review of federal legislation
|
|
gptkbp:jurisdiction
|
gptkb:United_States_federal_court_system
|
|
gptkbp:lawyer_for_petitioner
|
gptkb:Robert_H._Jackson
|
|
gptkbp:lawyer_for_respondent
|
gptkb:Charles_E._Hughes
|
|
gptkbp:legal_context
|
Great Depression era legislation
|
|
gptkbp:legal_issue
|
Constitutionality of the Agricultural Adjustment Act
|
|
gptkbp:legal_principle
|
Limits of federal power
|
|
gptkbp:legislation
|
gptkb:Agricultural_Adjustment_Act_of_1933
|
|
gptkbp:outcome
|
The Act was declared unconstitutional
|
|
gptkbp:precedent
|
Subsequent agricultural legislation
Cited in future cases
|
|
gptkbp:public_perception
|
gptkb:Justice_Owen_J._Roberts
|
|
gptkbp:public_reaction
|
Controversial ruling
|
|
gptkbp:related_cases
|
gptkb:United_States_v._Schechter_Poultry_Corp.
United States v. Harlan
|
|
gptkbp:scholarly_analysis
|
Discussed in law reviews
|
|
gptkbp:significance
|
Set a precedent for federal regulation of agriculture
|
|
gptkbp:subsequent_history
|
Overturned by later legislation
|
|
gptkbp:bfsParent
|
gptkb:Grosjean_v._American_Press_Co.
|
|
gptkbp:bfsLayer
|
5
|