|
gptkbp:instance_of
|
gptkb:court_cases
|
|
gptkbp:argued_on
|
January 12, 1914
|
|
gptkbp:case_number
|
gptkb:No._1
|
|
gptkbp:case_outcome
|
strengthened federal authority
set precedent for future cases
influenced public policy on transportation
significant for antitrust enforcement
|
|
gptkbp:case_types
|
antitrust litigation
|
|
gptkbp:court
|
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
|
|
gptkbp:decided_by
|
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
March 2, 1914
|
|
gptkbp:dissenting_opinion
|
Justice Brandeis dissenting opinion
Justice Holmes dissenting opinion
|
|
gptkbp:historical_context
|
Progressive Era reforms
|
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
|
United States v. Southern Railway Co.
|
|
gptkbp:impact
|
consumer protection laws
railroad industry regulations
competition in the marketplace
federal regulation of railroads
business practices in transportation
|
|
gptkbp:involved_parties
|
gptkb:United_States
gptkb:Southern_Railway_Company
|
|
gptkbp:is_cited_in
|
gptkb:226_U._S._620
|
|
gptkbp:judges
|
gptkb:Justice_Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.
gptkb:Justice_William_R._Day
gptkb:Justice_Louis_Brandeis
Justice William Howard Taft
|
|
gptkbp:legal_issue
|
antitrust laws
|
|
gptkbp:legal_outcome
|
affirmed lower court ruling
|
|
gptkbp:legal_principle
|
monopolistic practices
price discrimination
restraint of trade
|
|
gptkbp:legislation
|
gptkb:Hepburn_Act
gptkb:Elkins_Act
|
|
gptkbp:outcome
|
ruled in favor of the United States
|
|
gptkbp:precedent
|
subsequent antitrust cases
|
|
gptkbp:related_cases
|
gptkb:United_States_v._Baltimore_&_Ohio_Railroad_Company
gptkb:United_States_v._Reading_Co.
gptkb:United_States_v._Union_Pacific_Railroad_Company
gptkb:United_States_v._Chicago,_Milwaukee,_St._Paul_and_Pacific_Railroad_Company
|
|
gptkbp:related_to
|
transportation law
|
|
gptkbp:relevant_statute
|
gptkb:Sherman_Antitrust_Act
|
|
gptkbp:significance
|
enforcement of the Sherman Act
|
|
gptkbp:year
|
gptkb:1914
|
|
gptkbp:bfsParent
|
gptkb:Taft_Court
|
|
gptkbp:bfsLayer
|
4
|