United States v. E. C. Knight Co.
GPTKB entity
Statements (74)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkb:legal_case |
| gptkbp:area |
competition law
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
often studied in law schools.
discussed in legal forums. analyzed for its economic implications. analyzed for its implications on federal power. critiqued for its narrow interpretation. impacted the interpretation of the Sherman Act. important in antitrust law history. |
| gptkbp:case_historical_impact |
shaped the future of antitrust enforcement.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_interpretation |
interpreted the Sherman Act's applicability.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
gptkb:No._1
documented in legal archives. a key case in the history of U. S. law. summarized in legal textbooks. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
gptkb:Justice_Stephen_J._Field
1895 unanimous decision. the court held that manufacturing was not subject to federal regulation under the Sherman Act. affected the regulatory landscape. influenced future antitrust legislation. limited federal power over manufacturing significant for its implications on federal authority. |
| gptkbp:case_relevance_today |
still relevant in modern antitrust discussions.
|
| gptkbp:case_significance |
considered a pivotal case in antitrust law.
defined limits of federal antitrust enforcement |
| gptkbp:case_types |
civil case
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
impacted the development of antitrust policy.
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States
gptkb:E._C._Knight_Co. |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
1895-01-21 |
| gptkbp:decision_effect |
limited the scope of the Sherman Act.
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_John_Marshall_Harlan
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
late 19th century antitrust movement
|
| 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:involved_parties |
gptkb:United_States
gptkb:E._C._Knight_Company |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
often cited in legal arguments.
156 U. S. 1 156 U. S. 1 (1895) |
| gptkbp:judged_by |
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:Monopoly
|
| gptkbp:legacy |
remains relevant in discussions of antitrust law.
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
set against the backdrop of industrialization.
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
part of the legal framework for antitrust law.
the decision limited federal intervention. |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Antitrust law
the government argued that E. C. Knight Co. was monopolizing sugar refining. |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
the ruling favored the defendant.
the court ruled that the Sherman Act did not apply to manufacturing. |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
commerce clause interpretation
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
analyzed for its legal reasoning.
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
ruled in favor of E. C. Knight Co.
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:related_cases |
gptkb:Northern_Securities_Co._v._United_States
|
| gptkbp:significance |
antitrust law
Limited the federal government's power to regulate monopolies |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Melville_W._Fuller
gptkb:Sherman_Antitrust_Act |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|