Editing Corporate criminal liability

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 4: Line 4:


===New York Central===
===New York Central===
The '''Interstate Commerce Act of 1887''' set '''price control'''s for railroad companies. A railroad company (New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co.) was criminally convicted and fined for $108,000 for lowering its shipping prices for one of its commercial clients through a rebate scheme which violated the price control. The landmark Supreme Court case ''New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States'' (1909) set the precedent for holding a corporation criminally liable.<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/212/481</ref> The railroad company argued that convicting the corporation would harm the shareholders who couldn't defend themselves. The Court ruled that the ''respondeat superior'' doctrine from [[tort]] law should apply to criminal law.
The '''Interstate Commerce Act of 1887''' set '''price control'''s for railroad companies. A railroad company (New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co.) was criminally convicted and fined for $108,000 for lowering its shipping prices for one of its commercial clients through a rebate scheme which violated the price control. The landmark Supreme Court case ''New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States'' (1909) set the precedent for holding a corporation criminally liable.<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/212/481</ref> The railroad company argued that convicting the corporation would harm the shareholders who couldn't defend themselves. The Court ruled that the ''respondeat superior'' doctrine from tort law should apply to criminal law.


Critics of the current paradigm of the American legal system holding corporations criminally liable say it is "ipse dixit" meaning because the US courts have said so.
Critics of the current paradigm of the American legal system holding corporations criminally liable say it is "ipse dixit" meaning because the US courts have said so.
Please note that all contributions to Wiki Law School are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (see Wiki Law School:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)