United States v. Erie Railroad Co.
GPTKB entity
Statements (51)
Predicate | Object |
---|---|
gptkbp:instanceOf |
court case
|
gptkbp:caseOutcome |
set standards for future cases
shaped regulatory policies clarified legal definitions of monopoly defined competitive practices reaffirmed antitrust principles upheld antitrust enforcement actions affirmed_by_the_Supreme_Court |
gptkbp:caseTypes |
No. 1
civil case |
gptkbp:citedBy |
250 U.S. 98
|
gptkbp:consequences |
railroad mergers
transportation industry regulations |
gptkbp:court |
affirmed lower court ruling
|
gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
January 6, 1941 |
gptkbp:filedIn |
December 9, 1940
|
gptkbp:firstClaim |
led to stricter regulations
influenced public policy shaped legal precedents affected business practices influenced regulatory agencies |
gptkbp:historicalContext |
New Deal era
|
gptkbp:historicalEvent |
part of a series of antitrust cases
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. Erie Railroad Co.
|
gptkbp:impact |
subsequent antitrust cases
|
gptkbp:influencedBy |
Clayton Antitrust Act
Sherman Antitrust Act |
gptkbp:involved |
gptkb:United_States
gptkb:Erie_Railroad_Company |
gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Murphy
gptkb:Justice_Jackson majority opinion emphasized competition dissent argued for broader interpretation |
gptkbp:jurisdiction |
federal jurisdiction
|
gptkbp:legalStatus |
gptkb:U.S._Department_of_Justice
antitrust law enforcement antitrust laws reduced competition impact on railroad industry regulations monopolistic_practices Erie_Railroad's_legal_team |
gptkbp:notableFeature |
landmark antitrust case
examined monopolistic behavior |
gptkbp:outcome |
judgment_for_the_United_States
|
gptkbp:politicalParty |
gptkb:Justice_Felix_Frankfurter
|
gptkbp:precedent |
future antitrust litigation
established standards for antitrust enforcement |
gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:United_States_v._Southern_Pacific_Co.
gptkb:United_States_v._Chicago,_Burlington_&_Quincy_Railroad_Co. |
gptkbp:year |
1941
|