In the case of Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company v. Schneider, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a life insurance policy was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company, had issued a policy to the defendant, Schneider, in which Schneider agreed to pay a certain amount of money in the event of his death. Schneider subsequently died, and his estate sought to collect on the policy. The insurance company argued that the policy was invalid because Schneider had failed to pay the premiums on time. The Supreme Court held that the policy was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the policy was a contract between the parties, and that the insurance company had accepted the premiums and issued the policy in good faith. The Court further held that the insurance company was not entitled to rescind the policy due to Schneider's late payments, as the company had not taken any action to indicate that it was rescinding the policy. The Court concluded that the policy was valid and enforceable, and that Schneider's estate was entitled to collect on the policy.

In Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company v. Schneider, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state statute that allowed for an insurance company's policyholders to inspect its books and records violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate any constitutional rights because there were no fundamental rights at stake in this case. However, Justice Harlan dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that states should be able to regulate their own internal affairs without interference from federal courts; secondly, he argued that allowing such inspections would interfere with property rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus could constitute a violation of due process under law. He concluded his dissent by stating "The right of inspection is one which may be so abused as seriously to impair or destroy private property." In sum, Justice Harlan believed that while states have broad powers when it comes to regulating their own internal affairs they must still respect certain individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution including those related to private property ownership.