O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
E615008
O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. is a 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of insurance agents’ commissions against a due process challenge, reflecting the Hughes Court’s deference to economic regulation.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. canonical | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6737216 — 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: O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court, includesCase, O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.]
-
A.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the conflict between federal procedural rules and state laws limiting class actions in federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
B.
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association is a landmark 1944 U.S. Supreme Court case that held insurance transactions across state lines are subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court administrative law case that clarified the "arbitrary and capricious" standard for judicial review of agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
-
E.
Practical Law Company
Practical Law Company is a legal publishing and know‑how provider that offers practical guidance, tools, and resources to help lawyers work more efficiently.
- 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: O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Target entity description: O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. is a 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of insurance agents’ commissions against a due process challenge, reflecting the Hughes Court’s deference to economic regulation.
-
A.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the conflict between federal procedural rules and state laws limiting class actions in federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
B.
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association is a landmark 1944 U.S. Supreme Court case that held insurance transactions across state lines are subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court administrative law case that clarified the "arbitrary and capricious" standard for judicial review of agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
-
E.
Practical Law Company
Practical Law Company is a legal publishing and know‑how provider that offers practical guidance, tools, and resources to help lawyers work more efficiently.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (30)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
court decision ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
economic regulation ⓘ insurance regulation ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtTimeOfDecision | Charles Evans Hughes ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved |
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1931 ⓘ |
| doctrine | judicial deference to economic regulation ⓘ |
| era | Hughes Court ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. ⓘ |
| holding |
State regulation of insurance agents’ commissions does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
The challenged state statute regulating insurance agents’ commissions was upheld as constitutional ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
State of New Jersey
ⓘ
linked to:
New Jersey, United States
United States federal jurisdiction ⓘ |
| languageOfWork | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
constitutionality of state regulation of insurance agents’ commissions
ⓘ
due process challenge to economic regulation ⓘ |
| outcome | state economic regulation upheld ⓘ |
| petitioner | O’Gorman & Young, Inc. ⓘ |
| respondent |
Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
ⓘ
linked to:
Hartford Fire Insurance Company
|
| significance |
illustrates the Supreme Court’s increasing deference to state economic regulation during the Hughes Court era
ⓘ
represents a retreat from strict substantive due process review of economic legislation ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
insurance agents’ commission contracts
ⓘ
state power to regulate insurance business ⓘ |
| topic |
police power of the states
ⓘ
regulation of the insurance industry as a business affected with a public interest ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1931 ⓘ |
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: O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Description of subject: O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. is a 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of insurance agents’ commissions against a due process challenge, reflecting the Hughes Court’s deference to economic regulation.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court
→
includesCase
→
O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
ⓘ
O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
→
fullCaseName
→
O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
ⓘ