Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co.’s Empirical Analysis
258 U.S. 483 · 1922
Citation profile
289 federal appellate · 24 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 409 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (1946), Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders (1947)
289 federal appellate · 24 district · 21 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedWinsted Hosiery Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · Standard Paint Company v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Company · Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz · Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Wood
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 409 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The facts show that it is to the interest of the public that a proceeding to stop the practice be brought. * * * When misbranded goods attract customers by means of the fraud which they perpetrate, trade is diverted from the producer of truthfully marked goods.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]hat a person is a wrongdoer who so furnishes another with the means of consummating a fraud has long been a part of the law of unfair competition.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As a substantial part of the public was still misled by the use of the labels which the Winstead Company employed, the public had an interest in stopping the practice as wrongful; and since the business of its trade rivals who marked their goods truthfully was necessarily affected by that practice, the Commission was justified in its conclusion that the practice constituted, an unfair method of competition.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.