Statements (23)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court_case
|
| gptkbp:citation |
gptkb:333_U.S._257
|
| gptkbp:concurringOpinionBy |
gptkb:Justice_Murphy
gptkb:Justice_Rutledge gptkb:Justice_Douglas |
| gptkbp:country |
gptkb:United_States
|
| gptkbp:date |
1948-06-14
|
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:dissentingOpinionBy |
gptkb:Justice_Burton
gptkb:Justice_Frankfurter gptkb:Justice_Jackson |
| gptkbp:docketNumber |
Docket 22
|
| gptkbp:heldBy |
The Court held that intent is a necessary element in criminal antitrust violations under the Sherman Act.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
333 U.S. 257
|
| gptkbp:lawsApplied |
gptkb:Sherman_Antitrust_Act
|
| gptkbp:majorityOpinionBy |
gptkb:Justice_Reed
|
| gptkbp:officialName |
gptkb:United_States_v._United_States_Gypsum_Co.
|
| gptkbp:pages |
257
|
| gptkbp:reporter |
gptkb:United_States_Reports
|
| gptkbp:subject |
antitrust law
|
| gptkbp:volume |
333
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:In_re_Oliver
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
6
|