Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge
E276815
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge was an 1837 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited implied corporate rights in public charters and affirmed states’ power to promote the public interest over private monopoly claims.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2538917 — 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: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Context triple: [Roger B. Taney Court, notableCase, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge]
-
A.
Gibbons v. Ogden
Gibbons v. Ogden was an 1824 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly affirmed federal power over interstate commerce, significantly strengthening national authority relative to the states.
-
B.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
C.
Luther v. Borden
Luther v. Borden is an 1849 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "political question" doctrine by holding that the determination of a state's legitimate government under the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause is a matter for Congress, not the courts.
-
D.
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chisholm v. Georgia was a 1793 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a state could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state, a ruling that led directly to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment limiting such suits.
-
E.
Cohens v. Virginia
Cohens v. Virginia is an 1821 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed the Court’s authority to review state criminal proceedings involving federal law, strengthening federal judicial power over the states.
- 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: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Target entity description: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge was an 1837 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited implied corporate rights in public charters and affirmed states’ power to promote the public interest over private monopoly claims.
-
A.
Gibbons v. Ogden
Gibbons v. Ogden was an 1824 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly affirmed federal power over interstate commerce, significantly strengthening national authority relative to the states.
-
B.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
C.
Luther v. Borden
Luther v. Borden is an 1849 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "political question" doctrine by holding that the determination of a state's legitimate government under the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause is a matter for Congress, not the courts.
-
D.
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chisholm v. Georgia was a 1793 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a state could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state, a ruling that led directly to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment limiting such suits.
-
E.
Cohens v. Virginia
Cohens v. Virginia is an 1821 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed the Court’s authority to review state criminal proceedings involving federal law, strengthening federal judicial power over the states.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
contract clause case ⓘ landmark Supreme Court decision ⓘ |
| appliesConstitutionalProvision |
Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution
Contract Clause ⓘ |
| concernsStructure |
Charles River Bridge
ⓘ
Warren Bridge ⓘ |
| hasChiefJustice |
Roger Brooke Taney
ⓘ
surface form:
Roger B. Taney
|
| hasCitation | 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 ⓘ |
| hasCountry |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | 1837-02-14 ⓘ |
| hasDissentingJustices |
John Catron
ⓘ
John McKinley ⓘ Joseph Story ⓘ Philip P. Barbour ⓘ |
| hasDoctrinalImpact |
favored competition over monopoly in public franchises
ⓘ
limited implied corporate rights in public charters ⓘ strengthened state authority over internal improvements ⓘ |
| hasEra | Jacksonian era ⓘ |
| hasFullCaseName | Charles River Bridge et al. v. Warren Bridge et al. ⓘ |
| hasHolding |
Massachusetts did not violate the Contract Clause by authorizing the Warren Bridge
ⓘ
no monopoly or exclusive right is implied in a charter unless clearly expressed ⓘ public charters are to be construed narrowly against implied exclusive privileges ⓘ states may promote the public interest and economic development even when it affects existing corporate franchises ⓘ |
| hasImpactOn |
American corporate law
ⓘ
interpretation of public grants and franchises ⓘ state regulation of transportation infrastructure ⓘ |
| hasLegalIssue |
Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution
ⓘ
interpretation of public charters ⓘ scope of implied corporate rights ⓘ state power to promote the public interest ⓘ |
| hasLocation | Boston, Massachusetts ⓘ |
| hasMajorityJustices |
Henry Baldwin
ⓘ
James M. Wayne ⓘ John McLean ⓘ Roger Brooke Taney ⓘ
surface form:
Roger B. Taney
Smith Thompson ⓘ |
| hasMajorityOpinionBy |
Roger Brooke Taney
ⓘ
surface form:
Roger B. Taney
|
| hasParty |
Charles River Bridge Company
ⓘ
Warren Bridge proprietors ⓘ |
| hasPrecedentStatus | important early interpretation of the Contract Clause ⓘ |
| hasStateInvolved | Massachusetts ⓘ |
| hasTheme |
economic development and infrastructure
ⓘ
public interest versus private monopoly ⓘ |
| hasYearDecided | 1837 ⓘ |
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: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Description of subject: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge was an 1837 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited implied corporate rights in public charters and affirmed states’ power to promote the public interest over private monopoly claims.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.