Zitserman v. Federal Trade Commission’s Empirical Analysis
200 F.2d 519 · 1952
Citation profile
20 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 1971
20 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. § 41 (§ 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Federal Trade Commission v. Bunte Bros. · Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co. · Chas. A. Brewer & Sons v. Federal Trade Commission · Modernistic Candies, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Lichtenstein v. Federal Trade Commission
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Most of the boards were ‘plain boards’ which had no legend printed upon them designating the winning numbers and prizes. However, there was substantial testimony from petitioners’ customers that they easily had adapted these plain boards for the distribution of merchandise by lottery and that the adapted boards were used primarily to distribute merchandise rather than cash prizes. In addition, there was testimony that in certain instances Peerless furnished its customers with ‘flares’ (legends describing prizes and winning numbers) which they could attach to plain boards in adapting them for the distribution of merchandise as prizes. * * * By the sale and interstate shipment of its punchboards, petitioners have supplied and placed in the hands of third persons the means of and instrumentalities for engaging in unfair acts of distributing merchandise by lottery in violation of the Act. Since the evidence indicates that such punch-boards were designed and used primarily for the distribution of merchandise by lottery, it is no defense that in the main third parties attached to the boards the legends of winning numbers and merchandise prizes or that such boards could possibly be adapted as money boards giving only cash prizes.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If the appellant or petitioner in his brief challenges rulings upon evidence, such evidence, the objections interposed thereto, and the rulings questioned shall be quoted in the printed record, * * *.”
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.