Talk:Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States
|WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated C-class)|
Holding of the case
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
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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)