Lichtenstein v. Federal Trade Commission’s Empirical Analysis
194 F.2d 607 · 1952
Citation profile
28 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 1971 · most notably Surf Sales Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (1958), Pinney & Topliff v. Chrysler Corporation (1959)
28 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1172 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co. · Federal Trade Commission v. R. F. Keppel & Bro. Inc. · Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co. · United States v. Halseth
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is Ordered that respondent * * * do forthwith cease and desist from: “Selling or distributing in commerce, as ‘commerce’ is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act [ 15 U.S.C.A. § 41 et seq.], punch boards, push cards, or other lottery devices which are to be used or may be used in the sale or distribution of merchandise to the -public by means of a game of chance, gift enterprise, or lottery scheme.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Upon a review of the history of Section 5 (a) in connection with the decisions of the court thereon, we are of the opinion that the petitioner’s use of interstate commerce to ship these devices to be used in intrastate commerce in the gambling disposition of merchandise to the ultimate consumer is one of the 'unfair * * * practices in commerce’ subject to tire preventive control of the Commission.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““There may be in every child the impulse that prompts him to take a chance, but it has been the public teaching and the public policy of the land that gambling is immoral and to be condemned. The Federal Government has made it a criminal offense to transport lottery tickets or to cause them to be transported in interstate commerce. 18 U.S. C.A. § 387. Lotteries used in the marketing of merchandise have long been condemned by the Supreme Court and by this court. The cases are legion.” And again the court said: “It is clear that the Federal Trade Commission has the power to eradicate merchandising by gambling in interstate commerce. We think the Commission also has the power to prohibit the distribution in interstate commerce of devices intended to aid and encourage merchandising by gambling. The gamblers and those who deliberately and designedly aid and abet them are both engaged in practices contrary to public policy. Merchandising by gambling should not be divided into insulated acts, which appear innocent when examined separately. This unfair practice should be viewed as a whole. If the Federal Trade Commission is to police merchandising by gambling, it must police those who designedly and deliberately aid and abet this practice. We think the Commission has such power.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.