Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
E356741
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. is a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the authority of non-Article III bankruptcy courts and reshaped the constitutional framework for federal bankruptcy adjudication.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3417543 — 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: Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. Context triple: [Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, motivatedBy, Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.]
-
A.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state residency requirement for bar admission as unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
-
B.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
C.
Pennzoil v. Texaco lawsuit
The Pennzoil v. Texaco lawsuit was a landmark 1980s U.S. civil case in which Pennzoil won a multibillion-dollar judgment against Texaco over interference with its agreement to acquire Getty Oil, reshaping corporate merger practices and tort law.
-
D.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited courts’ ability to impose additional procedural requirements on federal agencies beyond those mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act and relevant statutes.
-
E.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago is an 1897 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a key step in applying federal constitutional protections—particularly just compensation for takings—to the states through the Fourteenth 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: Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. Target entity description: Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. is a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the authority of non-Article III bankruptcy courts and reshaped the constitutional framework for federal bankruptcy adjudication.
-
A.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state residency requirement for bar admission as unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
-
B.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
C.
Pennzoil v. Texaco lawsuit
The Pennzoil v. Texaco lawsuit was a landmark 1980s U.S. civil case in which Pennzoil won a multibillion-dollar judgment against Texaco over interference with its agreement to acquire Getty Oil, reshaping corporate merger practices and tort law.
-
D.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited courts’ ability to impose additional procedural requirements on federal agencies beyond those mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act and relevant statutes.
-
E.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago is an 1897 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a key step in applying federal constitutional protections—particularly just compensation for takings—to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
bankruptcy law case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
United States bankruptcy law
ⓘ
United States constitutional law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1982-03-01 ⓘ |
| citation | 458 U.S. 50 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Sandra Day O’Connor
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice O'Connor
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Rehnquist
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1982-06-28 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Warren E. Burger
ⓘ
surface form:
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
Byron R. White ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Byron R. White
Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William H. Rehnquist
|
| docketNumber | 81-1502 ⓘ |
| holding |
Congress may not vest in non-Article III bankruptcy courts the authority to adjudicate, render final judgment, and issue binding orders in traditional state-law contract claims against entities not otherwise part of the bankruptcy proceeding.
ⓘ
The broad grant of jurisdiction to bankruptcy courts under the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 violated Article III of the U.S. Constitution. ⓘ |
| impact |
Led to the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984.
ⓘ
Limited the authority of non-Article III bankruptcy courts. ⓘ Prompted Congress to revise the federal bankruptcy court system. ⓘ Reshaped the constitutional framework for federal bankruptcy adjudication. ⓘ |
| issue | Whether the broad jurisdiction granted to bankruptcy courts under the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 violated Article III by assigning judicial power to non-Article III judges. ⓘ |
| joinedByInPlurality |
Harry A. Blackmun
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Harry A. Blackmun
John Paul Stevens ⓘ
surface form:
Justice John Paul Stevens
Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Thurgood Marshall
|
| jurisdictionLimited | non-Article III bankruptcy courts ⓘ |
| jurisdictionType | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Article III of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
bankruptcy jurisdiction ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
William J. Brennan Jr.
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.
|
| page | 50 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Northern Pipeline Construction Company ⓘ |
| pluralityOpinionBy |
William J. Brennan Jr.
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.
|
| rearguedDate | 1982-04-26 ⓘ |
| relatedStatute |
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978
ⓘ
surface form:
Bankruptcy Act of 1978
|
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Marathon Pipe Line Company ⓘ |
| subsequentHistory | Prompted restructuring of bankruptcy court jurisdiction in 1984 legislation. ⓘ |
| topic |
adjudication of state-law claims in bankruptcy
ⓘ
distinction between Article III and non-Article III courts ⓘ public rights doctrine ⓘ |
| volume | 458 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1982 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. Description of subject: Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. is a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the authority of non-Article III bankruptcy courts and reshaped the constitutional framework for federal bankruptcy adjudication.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984
→
motivatedBy
→
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
ⓘ