Nebbia v. New York

E284993

United States Supreme Court case landmark decision

Nebbia v. New York is a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of milk prices and marked a major retreat from the Lochner-era limits on economic regulation under the Due Process Clause.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Nebbia v. New York canonical	3
Leo Nebbia v. People of the State of New York	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2660082 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Nebbia v. New York
Context triple: [Lochner v. New York, relatedCase, Nebbia v. New York]

A. New York v. United States (1992)
New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
B. New York v. Quarles
New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
C. Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
D. Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania is a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case that held it unconstitutional to impose a license tax on the distribution of religious literature, reinforcing First Amendment protections for religious proselytizing.
E. Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Nebbia v. New York
Target entity description: Nebbia v. New York is a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of milk prices and marked a major retreat from the Lochner-era limits on economic regulation under the Due Process Clause.

A. New York v. United States (1992)
New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
B. New York v. Quarles
New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
C. Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
D. Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania is a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case that held it unconstitutional to impose a license tax on the distribution of religious literature, reinforcing First Amendment protections for religious proselytizing.
E. Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (50)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ
areaOfLaw	constitutional law ⓘ economic liberty ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ
citation	291 U.S. 502 ⓘ
constitutionalProvision	Due Process Clause ⓘ surface form: Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1934-03-05 ⓘ
dissentingJustices	George Sutherland ⓘ James Clark McReynolds ⓘ Pierce Butler ⓘ Willis Van Devanter ⓘ
dissentingOpinionBy	James Clark McReynolds ⓘ
fullCaseName	Nebbia v. New York self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Leo Nebbia v. People of the State of New York
geographicScope	New York State ⓘ surface form: State of New York
historicalEra	Lochner v. New York ⓘ surface form: Lochner era
holding	a state may adopt economic policies reasonably deemed to promote public welfare and enforce them by appropriate regulations ⓘ state regulation of milk prices did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
impact	reduced judicial scrutiny of state economic legislation under the Due Process Clause ⓘ
industryInvolved	dairy industry ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
legalIssue	constitutionality of state regulation of milk prices ⓘ scope of Due Process Clause in economic regulation ⓘ
majorityJustices	Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo ⓘ surface form: Benjamin Cardozo Charles Evans Hughes ⓘ Justice Harlan F. Stone ⓘ surface form: Harlan F. Stone Justice Louis D. Brandeis ⓘ surface form: Louis Brandeis Justice Owen J. Roberts ⓘ surface form: Owen J. Roberts
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Owen J. Roberts ⓘ surface form: Owen J. Roberts
overruledPriorDoctrine	strict substantive due process limits on price regulation associated with Lochner v. New York ⓘ
petitioner	Leo Nebbia ⓘ
precedentialStatus	good law as to deference to economic regulation ⓘ
principle	a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare ⓘ courts will not override economic policy choices if the law has a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose ⓘ there is no closed class of businesses affected with a public interest ⓘ
productInvolved	milk ⓘ
relatedCase	Lochner v. New York ⓘ Munn v. Illinois ⓘ West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish ⓘ
respondent	New York ⓘ surface form: State of New York
significance	expanded deference to state economic regulation under the Due Process Clause ⓘ laid groundwork for later New Deal–era decisions upholding economic regulation ⓘ marked a major retreat from Lochner-era limits on economic regulation ⓘ
stateLawInvolved	New York milk control law ⓘ
subjectMatter	economic regulation ⓘ police power of the state ⓘ price controls ⓘ
typeOfRegulation	minimum retail price controls ⓘ
yearDecided	1934 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (4)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Lochner v. New York → relatedCase → Nebbia v. New York ⓘ

United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court → includesCase → Nebbia v. New York ⓘ

Nebbia v. New York → fullCaseName → Nebbia v. New York self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Leo Nebbia v. People of the State of New York

New Deal era Supreme Court jurisprudence → includesCase → Nebbia v. New York ⓘ

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated Show

Statements (50)

How these facts were elicited Show

Referenced by (4)

How this entity was disambiguated

How these facts were elicited