Brown Shoe Co. v. United States
E530384
Brown Shoe Co. v. United States is a 1962 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that set influential but controversial standards for evaluating vertical and conglomerate mergers under the Clayton Act.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Brown Shoe Co. v. United States canonical | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5539330 — 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: Brown Shoe Co. v. United States Context triple: [The Antitrust Paradox, criticizes, Brown Shoe Co. v. United States]
-
A.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
-
B.
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal by limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.
-
C.
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma was preempted by federal sanctions under the Supremacy Clause.
-
D.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
E.
Frohwerk v. United States
Frohwerk v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a conviction for antiwar newspaper articles, reinforcing broad federal power to punish speech deemed obstructive to World War I military recruitment.
- 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: Brown Shoe Co. v. United States Target entity description: Brown Shoe Co. v. United States is a 1962 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that set influential but controversial standards for evaluating vertical and conglomerate mergers under the Clayton Act.
-
A.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
-
B.
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal by limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.
-
C.
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma was preempted by federal sanctions under the Supremacy Clause.
-
D.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
E.
Frohwerk v. United States
Frohwerk v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a conviction for antiwar newspaper articles, reinforcing broad federal power to punish speech deemed obstructive to World War I military recruitment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (53)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
antitrust case ⓘ merger case ⓘ |
| aroseFrom | proposed merger of Brown Shoe Company and G.R. Kinney Company ⓘ |
| hasAreaOfLaw |
antitrust law
ⓘ
competition law ⓘ corporate law ⓘ merger control ⓘ |
| hasChiefJusticeInMajority | Earl Warren ⓘ |
| hasCitation |
370 U.S. 294
ⓘ
8 L. Ed. 2d 510 ⓘ 82 S. Ct. 1502 ⓘ |
| hasCountry |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| hasDocketNumber | No. 4 ⓘ |
| hasHolding |
Congress intended to arrest anticompetitive tendencies in their incipiency
ⓘ
Section 7 of the Clayton Act is concerned with probabilities, not certainties, of anticompetitive effects ⓘ relevant market must be determined by practical indicia, not abstract economic theory alone ⓘ the proposed merger violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act ⓘ |
| hasIndustry |
shoe manufacturing
ⓘ
shoe retailing ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | federal jurisdiction ⓘ |
| hasKeyConcept |
conglomerate effects
ⓘ
incipiency doctrine ⓘ line of commerce ⓘ practical indicia of market definition ⓘ section of the country ⓘ substantial lessening of competition ⓘ trend toward concentration ⓘ vertical foreclosure ⓘ |
| hasLegalIssue |
definition of relevant geographic market
ⓘ
definition of relevant product market ⓘ incipiency standard in merger control ⓘ legality of horizontal merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act ⓘ legality of vertical merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act ⓘ role of market share and concentration in merger analysis ⓘ |
| hasLowerCourt | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ⓘ |
| hasMajorityOpinionBy | Earl Warren ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner | Brown Shoe Company ⓘ |
| hasProceduralPosture | direct appeal by the United States from a district court decree approving the merger with conditions ⓘ |
| hasRespondent | United States of America ⓘ |
| hasVote | 8–1 ⓘ |
| involvesStatute |
Clayton Act
ⓘ
linked to:
Clayton Act provisions
Section 7 of the Clayton Act ⓘ
linked to:
Clayton Act provisions
Sherman Antitrust Act ⓘ |
| isCharacterizedAs | influential but controversial precedent on vertical and conglomerate mergers ⓘ |
| isKnownFor |
articulating detailed standards for merger analysis under Section 7 of the Clayton Act
ⓘ
emphasizing congressional intent to preserve small, locally owned businesses ⓘ influencing later Supreme Court merger decisions ⓘ |
| wasArguedOn |
1961-11-28
ⓘ
1961-11-29 ⓘ |
| wasDecidedOn | 1962-06-25 ⓘ |
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: Brown Shoe Co. v. United States Description of subject: Brown Shoe Co. v. United States is a 1962 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that set influential but controversial standards for evaluating vertical and conglomerate mergers under the Clayton Act.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.