Statements (56)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Frequently discussed in law schools
Analyzed for its implications on federalism Evaluated for its legal reasoning Analyzed under Commerce Clause Criticized for federal overreach Impacts state law enforcement Important for legal scholars Used as a case study in law courses |
| gptkbp:case_documentation_link |
Available in Supreme Court archives
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
gptkb:No._1
Appealed from lower court Available in legal archives Involves federal prosecution Involves liquor laws |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Defendant's appeal denied
Conviction affirmed by Supreme Court Defendant's actions violated federal law Influenced public policy on federalism Majority opinion by Justice William H. Taft |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Influenced future federalism cases
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Criminal case
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Strengthened federal regulatory power
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
December 12, 1922 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Early 20th century legal landscape
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. Lanza
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Clarified federal authority
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:United_States
Lanza |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:260_U._S._377
Referenced in legal textbooks |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Supreme Court review
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
Federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:legacy |
Continues to be cited in legal arguments
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Prohibition era laws
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Federalism and state rights |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Double_jeopardy
Interstate commerce Federal government authority over states |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Affirmed lower court ruling
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Commerce Clause interpretation
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Defendant represented by attorney
|
| gptkbp:modern_relevance |
Federal vs. state law authority
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Conviction upheld
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Subsequent double jeopardy cases
Subsequent cases on federalism Set precedent for federal enforcement |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Gibbons_v._Ogden
gptkb:Wickard_v._Filburn |
| gptkbp:significance |
Federal jurisdiction over state laws
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:United_States_v._Wheeler
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
6
|