Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Hooker Vs. Knapp

Hooker vs Knapp

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-07-1912
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/91219

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
225 U.S. 302
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hooker

Respondent

Knapp

Excerpt

hooker v. knapp - 225 u.s. 302 (1912) u.s. supreme court hooker v. knapp, 225 u.s. 302 (1912) hooker v. knapp no. 773, 774 argued january 11, 1912 decided june 7, 1912 225 u.s. 302 appeals from the united states commerce court syllabus decided on authority of procter & gamble v. united states, ante, p. 225 u. s. 282 . 188 f. 242, 256, reversed. the facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the united states commerce court, are stated in the opinion. page 225 u. s. 305 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˘ schedule to a 60˘ 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 page 225 u. s. 306 ( ante, p. 225 u. s. 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.

Full Judgment

Hooker v. Knapp - 225 U.S. 302 (1912)
U.S. Supreme Court Hooker v. Knapp, 225 U.S. 302 (1912)

Hooker v. Knapp

No. 773, 774

Argued January 11, 1912

Decided June 7, 1912

225 U.S. 302

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES COMMERCE COURT

SYLLABUS

Decided on authority of Procter & Gamble v. United States, ante, p. 225 U. S. 282 .

188 F. 242, 256, reversed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the United States Commerce Court, are stated in the opinion.

Page 225 U. S. 305

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˘ schedule to a 60˘ 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

Page 225 U. S. 306

( ante, p. 225 U. S. 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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial