Virginia v. Tennessee
E479819
Virginia v. Tennessee is an 1893 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified when interstate agreements require congressional approval under the Constitution’s Compact Clause.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Virginia v. Tennessee canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4892186 — 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: Virginia v. Tennessee Context triple: [Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, appliedInCase, Virginia v. Tennessee]
-
A.
Alabama v. Texas
Alabama v. Texas is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed a dispute among states over offshore submerged lands and the scope of federal authority under the Constitution.
-
B.
Tennessee v. Lane
Tennessee v. Lane is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to require states to provide accessible courthouses under the Americans with Disabilities Act as a valid enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
C.
Kentucky v. Dennison
Kentucky v. Dennison was an 1861 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that federal courts could not compel state governors to carry out interstate extradition.
-
D.
Fletcher v. Peck
Fletcher v. Peck was an 1810 U.S. Supreme Court decision that for the first time struck down a state law as unconstitutional, helping define the scope of the Contract Clause and judicial review over state legislation.
-
E.
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.
- 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: Virginia v. Tennessee Target entity description: Virginia v. Tennessee is an 1893 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified when interstate agreements require congressional approval under the Constitution’s Compact Clause.
-
A.
Alabama v. Texas
Alabama v. Texas is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed a dispute among states over offshore submerged lands and the scope of federal authority under the Constitution.
-
B.
Tennessee v. Lane
Tennessee v. Lane is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to require states to provide accessible courthouses under the Americans with Disabilities Act as a valid enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
C.
Kentucky v. Dennison
Kentucky v. Dennison was an 1861 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that federal courts could not compel state governors to carry out interstate extradition.
-
D.
Fletcher v. Peck
Fletcher v. Peck was an 1810 U.S. Supreme Court decision that for the first time struck down a state law as unconstitutional, helping define the scope of the Contract Clause and judicial review over state legislation.
-
E.
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.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (42)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
legal case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
interstate compacts ⓘ public law ⓘ |
| category |
United States Supreme Court cases in 1893
ⓘ
United States constitutional case law ⓘ United States federalism case law ⓘ |
| citation | 148 U.S. 503 ⓘ |
| clarified |
distinction between minor agreements and compacts affecting federal supremacy
ⓘ
scope of the Compact Clause ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Article I Section 10 Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Compact Clause NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1893 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Virginia v. Tennessee NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Not all interstate agreements require explicit congressional consent under the Compact Clause
ⓘ
Only interstate agreements that increase the political power of the states in a way that may encroach upon or interfere with the supremacy of the United States require congressional consent ⓘ The boundary agreement between Virginia and Tennessee was valid without explicit congressional approval ⓘ |
| impact | limited the range of interstate agreements requiring explicit congressional approval ⓘ |
| involvesEntity |
State of Tennessee
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
State of Virginia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| languageOfRecord | English ⓘ |
| legalDoctrine | test for when interstate agreements encroach upon federal supremacy ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
interpretation of the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution
ⓘ
validity of an interstate boundary agreement without explicit congressional consent ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 503 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Commonwealth of Virginia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| precedentFor | interpretation of when interstate compacts require congressional consent ⓘ |
| respondent | State of Tennessee NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | boundary line between Virginia and Tennessee upheld ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
federalism
ⓘ
interstate boundary dispute ⓘ state sovereignty ⓘ |
| timePeriod | 19th century ⓘ |
| usedAsPrecedentIn | later cases involving interstate compacts and agreements ⓘ |
| volumeInUnitedStatesReports | 148 ⓘ |
| yearArgued | 1892 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1893 ⓘ |
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: Virginia v. Tennessee Description of subject: Virginia v. Tennessee is an 1893 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified when interstate agreements require congressional approval under the Constitution’s Compact Clause.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.