Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States
E1201258
UNEXPLORED
Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the federal government does not retain an implied reversionary interest in railroad rights-of-way granted under an 1875 statute once the railroad abandons them.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T16205782 — 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: Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States Context triple: [October Term 2013, hasPart, Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States]
-
A.
United States of America v. Karl Brandt et al.
United States of America v. Karl Brandt et al. was a post–World War II Nuremberg military tribunal case prosecuting Nazi physicians and officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from inhumane medical experiments and the euthanasia program.
-
B.
Gelbard v. United States
Gelbard v. United States is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether grand jury witnesses could refuse to answer questions based on the government's alleged illegal use of wiretap evidence.
-
C.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
D.
United States v. Rabinowitz
United States v. Rabinowitz is a 1950 U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed Fourth Amendment protections by upholding a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.
-
E.
United States v. Bajakajian
United States v. Bajakajian is a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case that held, for the first time, that a criminal forfeiture could violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.
- 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: Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States Target entity description: Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the federal government does not retain an implied reversionary interest in railroad rights-of-way granted under an 1875 statute once the railroad abandons them.
-
A.
United States of America v. Karl Brandt et al.
United States of America v. Karl Brandt et al. was a post–World War II Nuremberg military tribunal case prosecuting Nazi physicians and officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from inhumane medical experiments and the euthanasia program.
-
B.
Gelbard v. United States
Gelbard v. United States is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether grand jury witnesses could refuse to answer questions based on the government's alleged illegal use of wiretap evidence.
-
C.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
D.
United States v. Rabinowitz
United States v. Rabinowitz is a 1950 U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed Fourth Amendment protections by upholding a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.
-
E.
United States v. Bajakajian
United States v. Bajakajian is a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case that held, for the first time, that a criminal forfeiture could violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.
- F. None of above. chosen
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.