Charles River Bridge et al. v. Warren Bridge et al.

E938877

Charles River Bridge et al. v. Warren Bridge et al. is an 1837 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited implied contract rights in corporate charters and affirmed states’ power to promote the public interest over private monopolies.

All labels observed (1)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (46)

Predicate Object
instanceOf U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ
United States constitutional law case ⓘ
United States contracts law case ⓘ
areaOfLaw corporate charters ⓘ
public franchises ⓘ
state police power ⓘ
aroseInJurisdiction Commonwealth of Massachusetts ⓘ
linked to: Massachusetts
backgroundEvent 1785 charter of the Charles River Bridge Company by Massachusetts ⓘ
1828 charter of the Warren Bridge by Massachusetts ⓘ
citation 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 ⓘ
9 L. Ed. 773 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInvolved Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution ⓘ
Contract Clause of the United States Constitution ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
decidedBy Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 1837-02-14 ⓘ
dissentingOpinionBy John Catron ⓘ
Joseph Story ⓘ
hasAlternativeName Charles River Bridge et al. v. Warren Bridge et al. ⓘ
historicalSignificance limited the reach of the Contract Clause compared to earlier decisions like Dartmouth College v. Woodward ⓘ
marked a shift toward Jacksonian-era emphasis on economic opportunity and competition ⓘ
holding Massachusetts did not violate the Contract Clause by authorizing the Warren Bridge ⓘ
a corporate charter does not imply an exclusive monopoly right unless explicitly stated ⓘ
states may promote the public interest and economic development even when it affects existing charters, absent explicit contractual exclusivity ⓘ
languageOfOpinion English ⓘ
legalIssue application of the Contract Clause to state-granted franchises ⓘ
scope of implied contract rights in corporate charters ⓘ
whether a state-granted charter creates an implied monopoly ⓘ
locationOfSubjectMatter Charles River ⓘ
between Boston and Charlestown, Massachusetts ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Roger B. Taney ⓘ
linked to: Roger Brooke Taney
majorityOpinionJoinedBy Henry Baldwin ⓘ
James M. Wayne NERFINISHED ⓘ
John McLean ⓘ
Philip P. Barbour ⓘ
party Charles River Bridge Company ⓘ
Commonwealth of Massachusetts ⓘ
linked to: Massachusetts

Warren Bridge Company ⓘ
principleEstablished ambiguities in public charters are resolved against implied private monopolies ⓘ
public grants are to be construed narrowly in favor of the public ⓘ
states retain broad authority to regulate for the public good despite prior grants ⓘ
relatedCase Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward ⓘ
relatedDoctrine no implied monopoly in state charters ⓘ
strict construction of public grants ⓘ
term 1836 term of the U.S. Supreme Court ⓘ
timePeriod Jacksonian era ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (2)

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

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge → hasFullCaseName → Charles River Bridge et al. v. Warren Bridge et al. ⓘ
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge → hasAlternativeName → Charles River Bridge et al. v. Warren Bridge et al. ⓘ