Skip to main content

This Day in Legal History -- Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S 1 (1911)

By

Houston (perhaps) rightly considers itself the home of the oil industry, but the most famous legal case involves a company headquartered in New Jersey. On this date the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911). 

Standard Oil dominated the oil market in the United States and its path to such a lofty place was not without controversy. Ida Tarbell’s scathing investigation of the “Oil Trust” opened many people’s eyes to its tactics and control of the market. It also brought interest from the federal government and its antitrust powers embodied in the Sherman Antitrust Act.  States had tried to reign in Standard Oil, but had failed. New President Theodore Roosevelt felt he could do better, and he succeeded. 

At the time the case was brought the parties believed the case to be one of the most important cases heard by the Supreme Court. US Attorney General George W. Wickersham said of the case, “ never in the history of this country have there been presented to any tribunal controversies in which the issues were more momentous than those in the case against the American Tobacco Company and in the case at bar.” It seemed the fate of capitalism itself was being decided.

Standard Oil lost and its largest stockholder, John D. Rockefeller, became richer than ever. The case is famous for breaking up Standard Oil into a variety of regional oil companies (Amoco, Chevron, Exxon, and Mobil to name the most famous) and giving Rockefeller stock in each. The case spurred the creation of the Federal Trade Commission. Its legal legacy is the adoption of the “rule of reason” (unreasonable restraint of trade was actionable) as a foundation for future antitrust actions and “helped to establish the rules and character of market capitalism in modern America.” The case of Standard Oil of New Jersey vs. United States remains a “powerful and enduring. . .symbol of big business and the extent of its public accountability.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le...
1 comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda

By Anonymous
“Man’s inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” –Martin Luther King Jr.   Last week, I had the pleasure of attending  Professor Zachary D. Kaufman ’s presentation on  Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda  hosted by the  Johannesburg Holocaust & Geno cide Ce ntre . Among the many takeaways highlighted by Professor Kaufman and drawn from  Lessons from Rwanda: Post-Genocide Law and Policy   were ten simple yet profound lessons:   Lesson #1: Hate speech is dangerous.   To illustrate the role that hate speech played in the Rwandan genocide, Professor Kaufman discussed multiple forms of  propaganda , such as Kangura, Radio Rwanda, and RTLM “hate radio.”   He concludes that we must have limits, including with respect to social media, and further asserts that social media must do a better jo...
Post a Comment
Read more