Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.
E354847
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the validity of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the Rules Enabling Act and helped define the scope of federal procedural rulemaking.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. canonical | 1 |
| Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1 (1941) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3392330 — 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: Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. Context triple: [Rules Enabling Act, interpretedIn, Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.]
-
A.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
-
B.
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state interference with private contracts by striking down a Minnesota pension law as violating the Constitution’s Contract Clause.
-
C.
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to revoke business licenses of employers who knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants, ruling that it was not preempted by federal immigration law.
-
D.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. is a landmark 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly defined "gross income" under the Internal Revenue Code to include punitive damages and other undeniable accessions to wealth.
-
E.
Zschernig v. Miller
Zschernig v. Miller is a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state involvement in foreign affairs by striking down an Oregon law affecting inheritance rights of foreign nationals as an intrusion into the federal government's exclusive foreign relations power.
- 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: Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. Target entity description: Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the validity of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the Rules Enabling Act and helped define the scope of federal procedural rulemaking.
-
A.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
-
B.
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state interference with private contracts by striking down a Minnesota pension law as violating the Constitution’s Contract Clause.
-
C.
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to revoke business licenses of employers who knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants, ruling that it was not preempted by federal immigration law.
-
D.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. is a landmark 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly defined "gross income" under the Internal Revenue Code to include punitive damages and other undeniable accessions to wealth.
-
E.
Zschernig v. Miller
Zschernig v. Miller is a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state involvement in foreign affairs by striking down an Oregon law affecting inheritance rights of foreign nationals as an intrusion into the federal government's exclusive foreign relations power.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (40)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
federal civil procedure case ⓘ |
| appliedRule |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
ⓘ
Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ⓘ Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ⓘ |
| appliedStatute | Rules Enabling Act ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil procedure
ⓘ
federal courts ⓘ |
| citation | 312 U.S. 1 ⓘ |
| coreQuestion |
Can a federal rule compel a party to undergo a physical examination in a diversity case?
ⓘ
What counts as a procedural rule under the Rules Enabling Act? ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| courtLevel | court of last resort ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1941 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| holding |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that are procedural in nature apply in federal diversity cases
ⓘ
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are valid under the Rules Enabling Act if they regulate procedure and do not abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights ⓘ |
| impact |
clarified that rules governing procedure in federal courts are valid if they do not affect substantive rights
ⓘ
helped define the scope of federal procedural rulemaking ⓘ influenced later Erie doctrine and Hanna v. Plumer jurisprudence ⓘ |
| issue |
Whether a federal procedural rule requiring a physical examination could be applied in a diversity action
ⓘ
Whether certain Federal Rules of Civil Procedure exceeded the authority granted by the Rules Enabling Act ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States federal courts
ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. federal courts
|
| keyConcept |
distinction between substantive and procedural law
ⓘ
scope of federal rulemaking power ⓘ validity of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Erie doctrine
ⓘ
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ⓘ Rules Enabling Act ⓘ civil procedure ⓘ federal procedural rulemaking ⓘ |
| legalSystem | common law ⓘ |
| petitioner | Sibbach ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | diversity jurisdiction civil action in federal court ⓘ |
| respondent | Wilson & Co. ⓘ |
| result | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upheld as within the authority granted by the Rules Enabling Act ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | personal injury litigation ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1941 ⓘ |
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: Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. Description of subject: Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the validity of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the Rules Enabling Act and helped define the scope of federal procedural rulemaking.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2077
→
interpretedIn
→
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1 (1941)
ⓘ
linked to: Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.