HOOKER
v.
KNAPP ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; EAGLE WHITE LEAD COMPANY V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Shippers seeking a reduction in railroad rates between Cincinnati and Chattanooga filed bills in the Commerce Court challenging an Interstate Commerce Commission order that refused their requested rate reduction, but the Supreme Court remanded the cases for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Commerce Court lacked authority to hear such challenges to ICC orders.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellants in these cases originally applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission for reduction of the maximum rates between Cincinnati and Chattanooga from the 76 c. schedule to a 60 c. schedule. The Commission refused to make the full extent of this reduction. Thereupon the respective parties filed bills in the Commerce Court demanding that the Commission’s order be “suspended, set aside, annulled, and declared void and of no effect” and that the individual defendants and the Commission be required by mandatory injunction to set aside and annul the said order, that the case be reopened, and the complainants given further relief. The two bills were consolidated. The individual defendants, the Commission, and the Railroad Company all demurred to the bill on the merits. The United States moved to dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. The court took jurisdiction, but dismissed on the merits. These appeals were then prosecuted. The cases are, in all respects, controlled by the opinion announced and ruling made in the Procter & Gamble Case, this day decided (ante, p. 282) and for the reasons in that case stated, these cases must be and are remanded, with directions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (31 total)
-
Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1939)…§ 4. Compare United States v. Atlanta, B. & C. R. Co., 282 U. S. 522. See House Report 1850, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 4-5; compare 78 Cong. Rec. 8446. * See e. g.: Procter & Gamble v. United States, (1912) 225 U. S. 282, 292 et seq. Hooker v. Knapp, 225 U. S. 302. United States v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 225 U. S. 306, 320. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 412. United States v. Illinois Central R. Co., 244 U. S. 82, 89. Chicago Junction Case, 264 U. S. 258, 263-264. United States v. New Riv…
-
The Chicago Junction Case, 264 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1924)…Court refused to interfere, was the assignment of a complaint for hearing. As this Court said: “ The notice . . . had no characteristic of an order, affirmative or negative.” In Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 282; Hooker v. Knapp, 225 U. S. 302; and Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 412, judicial review was refused, not because the order was permissive, or because it was negative in character, but because it was a denial of the affirmative relief sought.7 This Court decli…
-
United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake R.R. Co., 273 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1927)…port, is called an order. But there are many orders of the Commission which are not judicially reviewable under the provision now incorporated in the Urgent Deficiencies Act. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 282; Hooker v. Knapp, 225 U. S. 302; Lehigh Valley. R. R. Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 412; United States v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 244 U. S. 82, 89; Delaware & Hudson Co. v. United States, 266 U. S. 438. For the first nineteen years of the Commission’s existence no order was…
Previewing 3 of 31 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 162 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1896)
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1903)
- Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Cincinnati, 167 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1897)
- Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Chicago, 218 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1910)
- Silver v. Ladd, 7 Wall. 219 (U.S. 1868)