You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Railroad Commission v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Citations: 245 U.S. 638; 62 L. Ed. 525; 38 S. Ct. 191; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1647Docket: No. 391

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; January 21, 1918; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Jurisdiction is dismissed in this case based on established legal precedents and statutory authority. The dismissal is supported by the rulings in Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, Leathe v. Thomas, Holden Land Co. v. InterState Trading Co., and Mellon Co. v. McCafferty. Additionally, the governing Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Congress on September 6, 1916, and the case Philadelphia, Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, further substantiate the lack of jurisdiction in this matter.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Jurisdiction

Application: The court's jurisdiction is dismissed due to precedents and statutory authority, indicating that the court lacks the power to adjudicate the case.

Reasoning: Jurisdiction is dismissed in this case based on established legal precedents and statutory authority.

Precedent in Jurisdictional Dismissal

Application: The dismissal is supported by previous court rulings, emphasizing the consistent application of legal principles regarding jurisdiction.

Reasoning: The dismissal is supported by the rulings in Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, Leathe v. Thomas, Holden Land Co. v. InterState Trading Co., and Mellon Co. v. McCafferty.

Statutory Authority in Jurisdictional Matters

Application: The lack of jurisdiction is further substantiated by the Judicial Code as amended, showing the influence of legislative changes on judicial authority.

Reasoning: Additionally, the governing Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Congress on September 6, 1916, and the case Philadelphia, Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, further substantiate the lack of jurisdiction in this matter.