Talk:Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Holding of the case[edit]

I have not studied the actual text of the Supreme Court's decision in depth, but I made a minor modification to the language in the box containing the holding to refect the technical legal terminology in the case. Some day (aahhhh, some day) I hope to get to this case and refine the description of the holding or holdings in the case. Yours, Famspear 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dubious statement in "Facts" section[edit]

Can somebody find a better source for this statement?

"Although claims have been made that Standard Oil secretly secured preferential rates from regional rail roads, such a scheme never came into effect, and a more plausible explanation for the rise of Standard Oil was its ability to continuously lower its costs and thereby the cost to the consumer."

To dispel the well-sourced claim that Standard Oil got discounts denied to its competitors with just one page in a very pro-capitalism book? That's... well... dubious. I also added a "weasel word" notice on the "Although claims have been made" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac834 (talkcontribs) 23:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Update 8 Februrary 2014: I didn't receive a better source or pushback for tagging that statement as dubious -- so I just dropped it from the page altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac834 (talkcontribs) 05:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)