United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
GPTKB entity
Statements (58)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:court_cases
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
January 1920
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
analyzed for antitrust implications
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
gptkb:No._1
part of a series of antitrust cases involved complex economic arguments |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
affirmed lower court ruling
influenced public perception of monopolies majority opinion emphasized competition upheld antitrust laws ruled against monopolistic practices decision favored government intervention decision supported by economic theory majority opinion by Justice William Howard Taft majority opinion highlighted consumer welfare significant for economic policy affirmed lower court's decision against the railroad |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
important for antitrust law development
landmark case in U. S. legal history |
| gptkbp:case_types |
antitrust case
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
shaped antitrust enforcement strategies
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
March 1920 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
dissent focused on economic implications
dissent by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. dissent raised concerns about regulation |
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Progressive Era reforms
|
| gptkbp:historical_significance |
reflects early 20th-century economic policies
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
|
| gptkbp:impact |
railroad industry
increased government regulation of railroads |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:United_States
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
253 U. S. 450
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
reviewed by Supreme Court
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
federal
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
influenced future antitrust legislation
part of Sherman Act enforcement reaffirmed commitment to free market principles |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
antitrust laws
government argued against monopolies |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
set precedent for future cases
established guidelines for antitrust enforcement. reduced monopolistic control in railroads reduced railroad market power |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
monopolistic practices
promoted competition in the marketplace |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:Police_Department
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
court ruled against the railroad
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
subsequent antitrust cases
established standards for antitrust enforcement |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Northern_Securities_Co._v._United_States
gptkb:Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States |
| gptkbp:significance |
impact on railroad regulation
|
| gptkbp:year |
gptkb:1920
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:United_States_v._Pennsylvania_Railroad_Co.
gptkb:United_States_v._Delaware,_Lackawanna_and_Western_Railroad_Co. |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
5
|