Ogden v. Saunders
E655014
Ogden v. Saunders is an 1827 U.S. Supreme Court case, known for Justice Bushrod Washington’s opinion addressing the constitutionality of state bankruptcy laws under the Contract Clause.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Ogden v. Saunders canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7300284 — 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: Ogden v. Saunders Context triple: [Bushrod Washington, notableCase, Ogden v. Saunders]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Hurd v. Hodge
Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Lucas v. Earl
Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.
-
D.
McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the First Amendment’s Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity from libel suits for statements made in petitions to government officials.
-
E.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
- 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: Ogden v. Saunders Target entity description: Ogden v. Saunders is an 1827 U.S. Supreme Court case, known for Justice Bushrod Washington’s opinion addressing the constitutionality of state bankruptcy laws under the Contract Clause.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Hurd v. Hodge
Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Lucas v. Earl
Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.
-
D.
McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the First Amendment’s Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity from libel suits for statements made in petitions to government officials.
-
E.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (38)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark Contract Clause case ⓘ |
| hasChiefJusticeAtTime | John Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 ⓘ |
| hasConcurringOpinionBy |
Gabriel Duvall
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Henry Brockholst Livingston NERFINISHED ⓘ Thomas Todd NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasCountry |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | 1827 ⓘ |
| hasDissentingOpinionBy |
John Marshall
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Joseph Story NERFINISHED ⓘ Smith Thompson NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasEra | Marshall Court NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasHistoricalSignificance |
early articulation of limits on state power under the Contract Clause
ⓘ
first and only case in which Chief Justice John Marshall dissented on a major constitutional question ⓘ |
| hasHolding |
state bankruptcy laws cannot constitutionally impair the obligation of contracts made before the enactment of those laws
ⓘ
state bankruptcy laws may constitutionally discharge the obligations of contracts made after the passage of such laws ⓘ |
| hasImpact | influenced later Contract Clause jurisprudence ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| hasLegalIssue |
constitutionality of state bankruptcy laws
ⓘ
interpretation of the Contract Clause ⓘ |
| hasMajorityOpinionBy | Bushrod Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasOpinionCount | multiple separate opinions ⓘ |
| hasOutcome | state law upheld as applied to contracts made after its enactment ⓘ |
| hasParties |
Ogden
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Saunders NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasProceduralPosture | writ of error to a state court decision ⓘ |
| hasRuleOfLaw |
the Contract Clause does not prohibit all state bankruptcy laws
ⓘ
the Contract Clause prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of preexisting contracts ⓘ |
| hasSubjectArea |
bankruptcy law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ contracts ⓘ |
| hasSubjectMatter | state insolvency and bankruptcy legislation ⓘ |
| hasYearArgued | 1827 ⓘ |
| hasYearDecided | 1827 ⓘ |
| interpretsProvision | Contract Clause of the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| involvesConstitutionalArticle | Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
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: Ogden v. Saunders Description of subject: Ogden v. Saunders is an 1827 U.S. Supreme Court case, known for Justice Bushrod Washington’s opinion addressing the constitutionality of state bankruptcy laws under the Contract Clause.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.