United States v. E. C. Knight Co.
GPTKB entity
Statements (76)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Chief_Justice_Melville_Fuller
gptkb:Antitrust_Act_of_1890 gptkb:the_Sherman_Antitrust_Act gptkb:Melville_W._Fuller gptkb:Sherman_Antitrust_Act |
| gptkbp:affects |
limited the scope of the Sherman Act.
|
| gptkbp:area |
competition law
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
gptkb:No._1
civil case documented in legal archives. a key case in the history of U. S. law. summarized in legal textbooks. |
| gptkbp:consequences |
impacted the development of antitrust policy.
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States
gptkb:E._C._Knight_Co. |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:legal_case
1895-01-21 |
| gptkbp:historical_context |
late 19th century antitrust movement
|
| gptkbp:historical_impact |
shaped the future of antitrust enforcement.
|
| gptkbp:historical_significance |
considered a landmark case.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. E. C. Knight Co.
|
| gptkbp:impact |
gptkb:Sherman_Antitrust_Act
led to the establishment of stronger antitrust laws in the 20th century. |
| gptkbp:industry |
sugar refining industry
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
often cited in legal arguments.
156 U. S. 1 156 U. S. 1 (1895) |
| gptkbp:is_involved_in |
gptkb:United_States
gptkb:E._C._Knight_Company |
| gptkbp:judging_criteria |
the judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court.
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
reviewed by the Supreme Court.
the outcome was a significant judicial review. |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:key_issues |
gptkb:sports_event
|
| gptkbp:legacy |
remains relevant in discussions of antitrust law.
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Antitrust law
commerce clause interpretation the government argued that E. C. Knight Co. was monopolizing sugar refining. interpreted the Sherman Act's applicability. part of the legal framework for antitrust law. set against the backdrop of industrialization. the decision limited federal intervention. |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
analyzed for its legal reasoning.
|
| gptkbp:notable_event |
gptkb:Northern_Securities_Co._v._United_States
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
gptkb:Justice_Stephen_J._Field
unanimous decision. often studied in law schools. discussed in legal forums. the court held that manufacturing was not subject to federal regulation under the Sherman Act. affected the regulatory landscape. analyzed for its economic implications. analyzed for its implications on federal power. considered a pivotal case in antitrust law. critiqued for its narrow interpretation. defined limits of federal antitrust enforcement impacted the interpretation of the Sherman Act. important in antitrust law history. influenced future antitrust legislation. limited federal power over manufacturing ruled in favor of E. C. Knight Co. the ruling favored the defendant. significant for its implications on federal authority. the court ruled that the Sherman Act did not apply to manufacturing. Court ruled in favor of E. C. Knight Co. |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Subsequent antitrust cases
subsequent antitrust cases set a precedent for future antitrust cases. established a legal precedent for future cases. the distinction between manufacturing and commerce. |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_John_Marshall_Harlan
|
| gptkbp:significance |
antitrust law
Limited the federal government's power to regulate monopolies |
| gptkbp:use_case |
still relevant in modern antitrust discussions.
|
| gptkbp:year |
1895
|