Statements (128)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkb:court_cases |
| gptkbp:area |
regulatory law
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
analyzed in law schools
analyzed the balance of power discussed in legal circles analysis of the case outcome often studied in legal history relevant to discussions on economic regulation implications for business regulation part of American case law history |
| gptkbp:case_law_evolution |
evolution of case law regarding regulation
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
not applicable
No. 94 details of the majority opinion summary of the court's ruling |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
upheld state law
7-2 decision influenced state-federal relations impact on future regulatory frameworks majority opinion emphasized public welfare supported state intervention in economy upheld regulation of private industries majority ruled in favor of state regulation significance in the context of economic regulation upheld the constitutionality of state laws |
| gptkbp:case_relevance_today |
still relevant in discussions of regulation
|
| gptkbp:case_significance |
landmark case in U. S. regulatory law
|
| gptkbp:case_study_focus |
focus on state vs. federal powers
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
constitutional law case
administrative law case |
| gptkbp:consequences |
implications for federalism
expanded state power over commerce |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Supreme Court justices at the time |
| gptkbp:court's_rationale |
rationale for upholding state laws
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
1877 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Stephen_J._Field
dissent argued against state intervention argued against state overreach |
| gptkbp:doctrine |
police power
|
| gptkbp:economic_policy |
promoted public welfare
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_commerce |
limited federal intervention in state regulations
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
April 1877
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
post-Civil War economic regulation
post-Civil War economic expansion |
| gptkbp:historical_event |
led to increased state control over industries
|
| gptkbp:historical_impact |
significant impact on regulatory law
|
| gptkbp:historical_significance |
pivotal in shaping regulatory policies
historically significant case in U. S. law |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Munn v. Illinois
|
| gptkbp:impact |
gptkb:Interstate_Commerce_Act
influenced future regulatory cases interstate commerce regulation influenced future regulatory policies |
| gptkbp:influenced |
subsequent Supreme Court decisions
|
| gptkbp:influenced_by |
Granger movement
economic conditions of the time |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Illinois
Munn Munn and Illinois |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
numerous legal opinions
later Supreme Court cases often referenced in regulatory law cases 94 U. S. 113 (1877) |
| gptkbp:judges |
majority opinion favored state regulation
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
state laws
expanded scope of judicial review established judicial review of state regulations reasoning based on public necessity |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:United_States_federal_law
state jurisdiction over local businesses state jurisdiction over private enterprises |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
context of the legal environment at the time
context of 19th-century economic policies interpreted the 14th Amendment |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
utilitarianism
impact on judicial decisions framework for future regulatory cases October Term 1876 framework for state regulation of industries influenced judicial attitudes towards regulation judicial outcome favored state regulation reflected judicial philosophy of the time development of legal frameworks for regulation outcome favored state authority |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
regulation of private industries
arguments for and against state regulation debate over state vs. federal regulation whether states can regulate grain warehouse rates challenged by private companies |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
affirmative ruling
affirmed state law affirmed the right to regulate rates |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
public interest doctrine
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
analyzed the implications of the ruling
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Granger_Laws
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
upheld state regulation
upheld state regulation of private industries |
| gptkbp:preceded_by |
Munn v. Illinois (1876)
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
set precedent for similar cases
established judicial precedent for future cases set legal precedent for future cases future regulatory cases subsequent cases on regulation government regulation of private enterprise set legal precedent for state regulation |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_William_B._Woods
gptkb:Justice_William_J._Brennan_Jr. gptkb:Justice_William_Strong |
| gptkbp:regulatory_compliance |
state governments
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Wabash,_St._Louis_&_Pacific_Railway_Co._v._Illinois
gptkb:Chicago,_Milwaukee_&_St._Paul_Railway_Co._v._Minnesota |
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:Granger_Laws
economic regulation debates |
| gptkbp:significance |
established precedent for state regulation of businesses
established precedent for state regulation significant in U. S. legal history recognized the need for regulation |
| gptkbp:trade_goods |
rise of the Granger movement
|
| gptkbp:year |
1876
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Chief_Justice_Salmon_P._Chase
gptkb:Justice_Harlan gptkb:Joseph_Story gptkb:Morrison_Waite gptkb:United_States_v._Carolene_Products_Co. |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
5
|