Railway Express Agency v. New York

E362107

1949 court decision Equal Protection Clause case U.S. Supreme Court case

Railway Express Agency v. New York is a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a New York City traffic regulation restricting advertising on vehicles against an Equal Protection Clause challenge.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Railway Express Agency v. New York canonical	1
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3488666 — 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: Railway Express Agency v. New York
Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court, includesCase, Railway Express Agency v. New York]

A. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is a landmark 1928 New York Court of Appeals case, authored by Judge Benjamin Cardozo, that established the modern American doctrine of proximate cause and foreseeability in negligence law.
B. Penn Central Transportation Company
Penn Central Transportation Company was a major American railroad formed in 1968 by the merger of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad, later becoming infamous for its massive bankruptcy.
C. Nebbia v. New York
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.
D. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago is an 1897 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a key step in applying federal constitutional protections—particularly just compensation for takings—to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
E. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. is a 1916 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal income tax and clarified the scope and constitutionality of the Sixteenth 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: Railway Express Agency v. New York
Target entity description: Railway Express Agency v. New York is a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a New York City traffic regulation restricting advertising on vehicles against an Equal Protection Clause challenge.

A. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is a landmark 1928 New York Court of Appeals case, authored by Judge Benjamin Cardozo, that established the modern American doctrine of proximate cause and foreseeability in negligence law.
B. Penn Central Transportation Company
Penn Central Transportation Company was a major American railroad formed in 1968 by the merger of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad, later becoming infamous for its massive bankruptcy.
C. Nebbia v. New York
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.
D. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago is an 1897 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a key step in applying federal constitutional protections—particularly just compensation for takings—to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
E. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. is a 1916 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal income tax and clarified the scope and constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (49)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	1949 court decision ⓘ Equal Protection Clause case ⓘ U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ
arguedDate	1949-01-31 ⓘ
challengedProvision	Ordinance allowing only advertisements relating to the business of the vehicle’s owner ⓘ
citation	336 U.S. 106 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Felix Frankfurter ⓘ Robert H. Jackson ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection Clause ⓘ linked to: Equal Protection Clause
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1949-03-07 ⓘ
defendant	City of New York ⓘ linked to: New York City
dissentBy	Wiley B. Rutledge ⓘ linked to: Justice Wiley B. Rutledge
era	Vincent Court ⓘ
fullName	Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York ⓘ linked to: Railway Express Agency v. New York
holding	A New York City traffic regulation prohibiting advertising on vehicles except for advertisements relating to the owner’s own business does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Felix Frankfurter ⓘ Fred M. Vinson ⓘ linked to: Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson Harold H. Burton ⓘ Hugo L. Black ⓘ Stanley F. Reed ⓘ linked to: Stanley Reed Tom C. Clark ⓘ
jurisdiction	New York ⓘ
legalIssue	Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ linked to: Equal Protection Clause Reasonableness of legislative classifications ⓘ
legalPrinciple	Legislatures may address problems one step at a time and need not eradicate all evils at once ⓘ Underinclusive classifications do not necessarily violate equal protection if they have a rational basis ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	William O. Douglas ⓘ
outcome	New York City regulation upheld ⓘ
page	106 ⓘ
plaintiff	Railway Express Agency, Inc. ⓘ
priorHistory	Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York affirmed ⓘ
reasoning	The Equal Protection Clause does not require that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all ⓘ The city could reasonably conclude that advertising on vehicles posed traffic hazards and could limit such advertising to the owner’s own business ⓘ
relatedCase	United States v. Carolene Products Co. ⓘ Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
significance	Frequently cited for the principle that underinclusive regulations can satisfy rational basis review ⓘ Illustrates judicial deference to legislative judgments in economic and social regulation ⓘ
standardOfReview	rational basis review ⓘ
statuteOrOrdinanceInvolved	New York City traffic regulation prohibiting general advertising on vehicles ⓘ
subjectArea	administrative and regulatory law ⓘ civil rights ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ
subjectMatter	regulation of advertising on vehicles ⓘ
topic	economic regulation ⓘ traffic safety ⓘ
volume	336 ⓘ
vote	8-1 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (2)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court → includesCase → Railway Express Agency v. New York ⓘ

Railway Express Agency v. New York → fullName → Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York ⓘ

linked to: Railway Express Agency v. New York

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated Show

Statements (49)

How these facts were elicited Show

Referenced by (2)

How this entity was disambiguated

How these facts were elicited