State Oil Co. v. Khan
E1488068
UNEXPLORED
State Oil Co. v. Khan is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust decision that held maximum resale price maintenance is not per se illegal but instead subject to rule-of-reason analysis.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| State Oil Co. v. Khan canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T21497268 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: State Oil Co. v. Khan Context triple: [Albrecht v. Herald Co., overruledBy, State Oil Co. v. Khan]
-
A.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute in human rights lawsuits against corporations for conduct occurring abroad.
-
B.
Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico
Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state’s authority to impose severance taxes on non-Indian companies extracting oil and gas from tribal lands, clarifying limits on the Indian Commerce Clause and state taxation in Indian country.
-
C.
Doe v. Unocal Corp.
Doe v. Unocal Corp. is a landmark U.S. human rights lawsuit in which Burmese villagers sued Unocal in federal court for alleged complicity in forced labor and other abuses linked to a gas pipeline project in Myanmar.
-
D.
Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate
Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate is a landmark 1965 House of Lords decision in UK law concerning compensation for wartime destruction of private property by the Crown and the limits of governmental prerogative powers.
-
E.
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil is a landmark U.S. climate change lawsuit in which an Alaskan village sued major energy companies for damages allegedly caused by global warming and resulting coastal erosion.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: State Oil Co. v. Khan Target entity description: State Oil Co. v. Khan is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust decision that held maximum resale price maintenance is not per se illegal but instead subject to rule-of-reason analysis.
-
A.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute in human rights lawsuits against corporations for conduct occurring abroad.
-
B.
Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico
Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state’s authority to impose severance taxes on non-Indian companies extracting oil and gas from tribal lands, clarifying limits on the Indian Commerce Clause and state taxation in Indian country.
-
C.
Doe v. Unocal Corp.
Doe v. Unocal Corp. is a landmark U.S. human rights lawsuit in which Burmese villagers sued Unocal in federal court for alleged complicity in forced labor and other abuses linked to a gas pipeline project in Myanmar.
-
D.
Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate
Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate is a landmark 1965 House of Lords decision in UK law concerning compensation for wartime destruction of private property by the Crown and the limits of governmental prerogative powers.
-
E.
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil is a landmark U.S. climate change lawsuit in which an Alaskan village sued major energy companies for damages allegedly caused by global warming and resulting coastal erosion.
- F. None of above. chosen
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.