Railway Express Agency v. New York
E362107
Railway Express Agency v. New York is a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a New York City traffic regulation restricting advertising on vehicles against an Equal Protection Clause challenge.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Railway Express Agency v. New York canonical | 1 |
| Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3488666 — 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: Railway Express Agency v. New York Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court, includesCase, Railway Express Agency v. New York]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Penn Central Transportation Company
Penn Central Transportation Company was a major American railroad formed in 1968 by the merger of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad, later becoming infamous for its massive bankruptcy.
-
C.
Nebbia v. New York
Nebbia v. New York is a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of milk prices and marked a major retreat from the Lochner-era limits on economic regulation under the Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
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.
-
E.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. is a 1916 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal income tax and clarified the scope and constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment.
- 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: Railway Express Agency v. New York Target entity description: Railway Express Agency v. New York is a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a New York City traffic regulation restricting advertising on vehicles against an Equal Protection Clause challenge.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Penn Central Transportation Company
Penn Central Transportation Company was a major American railroad formed in 1968 by the merger of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad, later becoming infamous for its massive bankruptcy.
-
C.
Nebbia v. New York
Nebbia v. New York is a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of milk prices and marked a major retreat from the Lochner-era limits on economic regulation under the Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
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.
-
E.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. is a 1916 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal income tax and clarified the scope and constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
1949 court decision
ⓘ
Equal Protection Clause case ⓘ U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1949-01-31 ⓘ |
| challengedProvision | Ordinance allowing only advertisements relating to the business of the vehicle’s owner ⓘ |
| citation | 336 U.S. 106 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Felix Frankfurter
ⓘ
Robert H. Jackson ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection Clause
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1949-03-07 ⓘ |
| defendant |
New York City
ⓘ
surface form:
City of New York
|
| dissentBy |
Justice Wiley B. Rutledge
ⓘ
surface form:
Wiley B. Rutledge
|
| era | Vincent Court ⓘ |
| fullName |
Railway Express Agency v. New York
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York
|
| holding | A New York City traffic regulation prohibiting advertising on vehicles except for advertisements relating to the owner’s own business does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Felix Frankfurter
ⓘ
Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson ⓘ
surface form:
Fred M. Vinson
Harold H. Burton ⓘ Hugo L. Black ⓘ Stanley Reed ⓘ
surface form:
Stanley F. Reed
Tom C. Clark ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | New York ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Reasonableness of legislative classifications ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple |
Legislatures may address problems one step at a time and need not eradicate all evils at once
ⓘ
Underinclusive classifications do not necessarily violate equal protection if they have a rational basis ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| outcome | New York City regulation upheld ⓘ |
| page | 106 ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Railway Express Agency, Inc. ⓘ |
| priorHistory | Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York affirmed ⓘ |
| reasoning |
The Equal Protection Clause does not require that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all
ⓘ
The city could reasonably conclude that advertising on vehicles posed traffic hazards and could limit such advertising to the owner’s own business ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
United States v. Carolene Products Co.
ⓘ
Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| significance |
Frequently cited for the principle that underinclusive regulations can satisfy rational basis review
ⓘ
Illustrates judicial deference to legislative judgments in economic and social regulation ⓘ |
| standardOfReview | rational basis review ⓘ |
| statuteOrOrdinanceInvolved | New York City traffic regulation prohibiting general advertising on vehicles ⓘ |
| subjectArea |
administrative and regulatory law
ⓘ
civil rights ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | regulation of advertising on vehicles ⓘ |
| topic |
economic regulation
ⓘ
traffic safety ⓘ |
| volume | 336 ⓘ |
| vote | 8-1 ⓘ |
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: Railway Express Agency v. New York Description of subject: Railway Express Agency v. New York is a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a New York City traffic regulation restricting advertising on vehicles against an Equal Protection Clause challenge.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
→
includesCase
→
Railway Express Agency v. New York
ⓘ
Railway Express Agency v. New York
→
fullName
→
Railway Express Agency v. New York
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York