Nebbia v. New York
E284993
Nebbia v. New York is a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of milk prices and marked a major retreat from the Lochner-era limits on economic regulation under the Due Process Clause.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Nebbia v. New York canonical | 4 |
| Leo Nebbia v. People of the State of New York | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2660082 — 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: Nebbia v. New York Context triple: [Lochner v. New York, relatedCase, Nebbia v. New York]
-
A.
New York v. United States (1992)
New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
-
B.
New York v. Quarles
New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
-
C.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
D.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania is a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case that held it unconstitutional to impose a license tax on the distribution of religious literature, reinforcing First Amendment protections for religious proselytizing.
-
E.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
- 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: Nebbia v. New York Target entity description: Nebbia v. New York is a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of milk prices and marked a major retreat from the Lochner-era limits on economic regulation under the Due Process Clause.
-
A.
New York v. United States (1992)
New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
-
B.
New York v. Quarles
New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
-
C.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
D.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania is a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case that held it unconstitutional to impose a license tax on the distribution of religious literature, reinforcing First Amendment protections for religious proselytizing.
-
E.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark decision ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
economic liberty ⓘ substantive due process ⓘ |
| citation | 291 U.S. 502 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1934-03-05 ⓘ |
| dissentingJustices |
George Sutherland
ⓘ
James Clark McReynolds ⓘ Pierce Butler ⓘ Willis Van Devanter ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | James Clark McReynolds ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Leo Nebbia v. People of the State of New York
ⓘ
linked to:
Nebbia v. New York
|
| geographicScope |
State of New York
ⓘ
linked to:
New York State
|
| historicalEra |
Lochner era
ⓘ
linked to:
Lochner v. New York
|
| holding |
a state may adopt economic policies reasonably deemed to promote public welfare and enforce them by appropriate regulations
ⓘ
state regulation of milk prices did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| impact | reduced judicial scrutiny of state economic legislation under the Due Process Clause ⓘ |
| industryInvolved | dairy industry ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalIssue |
constitutionality of state regulation of milk prices
ⓘ
scope of Due Process Clause in economic regulation ⓘ |
| majorityJustices |
Benjamin Cardozo
ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo
Charles Evans Hughes ⓘ Harlan F. Stone ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Harlan F. Stone
Louis Brandeis ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Owen J. Roberts ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Owen J. Roberts
|
| majorityOpinionBy |
Owen J. Roberts
ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Owen J. Roberts
|
| overruledPriorDoctrine | strict substantive due process limits on price regulation associated with Lochner v. New York ⓘ |
| petitioner | Leo Nebbia ⓘ |
| precedentialStatus | good law as to deference to economic regulation ⓘ |
| principle |
a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare
ⓘ
courts will not override economic policy choices if the law has a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose ⓘ there is no closed class of businesses affected with a public interest ⓘ |
| productInvolved | milk ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Lochner v. New York
ⓘ
Munn v. Illinois ⓘ West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of New York
ⓘ
linked to:
New York
|
| significance |
expanded deference to state economic regulation under the Due Process Clause
ⓘ
laid groundwork for later New Deal–era decisions upholding economic regulation ⓘ marked a major retreat from Lochner-era limits on economic regulation ⓘ |
| stateLawInvolved | New York milk control law ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
economic regulation
ⓘ
police power of the state ⓘ price controls ⓘ |
| typeOfRegulation | minimum retail price controls ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1934 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Nebbia v. New York Description of subject: Nebbia v. New York is a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of milk prices and marked a major retreat from the Lochner-era limits on economic regulation under the Due Process Clause.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Nebbia v. New York