United States v. Aluminum Co. of America¶
(1945). United States v. Aluminum Co. of America.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Barrier to Entry
- The opinion itself never uses the word "barrier"; on the modern reading, though, the durability of that position is traced to two sources rather than to the mere fact of dominance
This sourceJudge Hand's opinion, which nowhere uses the language of entry barriers and turns instead on whether the monopoly was thrust upon Alcoa, while supplying both record findings the modern reading draws on - control of bauxite and low-cost power, which the court found not in excess of legitimate needs, and new capacity built ahead of demand to meet every entrant.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The opinion itself never uses the word "barrier"; on the modern reading, though, the durability of that position is traced to two sources rather than to the mere fact of dominance
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:687d1c3ad121 · see in the full table