Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
E137555
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.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago canonical | 2 |
| CB&Q v. Chicago | 1 |
| Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1213135 — 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.
Target entity: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago Context triple: [Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, influencedDecision, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago]
-
A.
Lochner v. New York
Lochner v. New York is a landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state labor regulation and became emblematic of the era in which the Court used substantive due process to protect economic liberty and limit government regulation of business.
-
B.
United States v. Butler
United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
-
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.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
-
E.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is a landmark 1916 New York Court of Appeals case that expanded manufacturers’ liability in negligence to consumers, even without privity of contract.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago Target entity description: 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.
-
A.
Lochner v. New York
Lochner v. New York is a landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state labor regulation and became emblematic of the era in which the Court used substantive due process to protect economic liberty and limit government regulation of business.
-
B.
United States v. Butler
United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
-
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.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
-
E.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is a landmark 1916 New York Court of Appeals case that expanded manufacturers’ liability in negligence to consumers, even without privity of contract.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (45)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
incorporation case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ |
| alsoKnownAs |
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
ⓘ
surface form:
CB&Q v. Chicago
|
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
eminent domain law ⓘ property law ⓘ |
| citation |
166 U.S. 226
ⓘ
17 S. Ct. 581 ⓘ 41 L. Ed. 979 ⓘ |
| compensationAwarded | nominal compensation to the railroad company ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
Fifth Amendment Takings Clause
Due Process Clause ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1897-03-01 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| dissentBy | Edward Douglass White ⓘ |
| firstPageInUSReports | 226 ⓘ |
| fullName |
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
|
| holding |
A state court condemnation award that is not arbitrary and provides some compensation satisfies due process
ⓘ
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to provide just compensation when taking private property for public use ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| languageOfOpinion | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Due Process Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
eminent domain ⓘ just compensation ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple | Just compensation for takings is required of the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause ⓘ |
| locationOfLowerCourt | Illinois ⓘ |
| lowerCourt |
Illinois Supreme Court
ⓘ
surface form:
Supreme Court of Illinois
|
| majorityBy | John Marshall Harlan ⓘ |
| partOf | Fourteenth Amendment incorporation jurisprudence ⓘ |
| petitioner |
Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad
ⓘ
surface form:
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company
|
| proceduralPosture | writ of error to the Supreme Court of Illinois ⓘ |
| publicUse | opening of a public street across railroad property ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine | selective incorporation ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | City of Chicago ⓘ |
| significance |
Established that state takings must meet federal constitutional standards of due process
ⓘ
One of the earliest cases to apply a provision of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | state obligation to pay just compensation for takings ⓘ |
| subsequentHistory | Frequently cited in later incorporation cases ⓘ |
| volumeInUSReports | 166 ⓘ |
| vote | 7–1 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1897 ⓘ |
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.
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.
Subject: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago Description of subject: 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.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.