Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner’s Empirical Analysis
280 U.S. 19 · 1929
Citation profile
196 federal appellate · 12 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 378 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Heckler v. Chaney (1985), Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935)
196 federal appellate · 12 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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
reviewedFederal Trade Commission v. Klesner (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Co. · Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific States Paper Trade Ass'n · Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co. · Interstate Commece Commission v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
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 378 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exercises a broad discretion . . ., [t]o justify filing a complaint the public interest must be specific and substantial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 5 . . . does not provide private persons with an administrative remedy for private wrongs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While the Federal Trade Commission exercises under section 5 [15 USCA § 45] the functions of both prosecutor and judge, the scope of its authority is strictly limited. A complaint may be filed only ‘if it shall appear to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public.’ This requirement is not satisfied by proof that there has been misapprehension and confusion on the part of purchasers, or even that they have been deceived — the evidence commonly adduced by the plaintiff in ‘passing off’ eases in order to establish the alleged private wrong. It is true that in suits by private traders to enjoin unfair competition .by ‘passing off,’ proof that the public is deceived is an essential element of the cause of action. This proof is necessary only because otherwise the plaintiff has not suffered an injury. There, protection of the public is an incident of the enforcement of a private right. But to justify the Commission in filing a complaint under section 5, the purpose must be protection of the public. The protection thereby afforded to private persons is the incident. Public interest may exist although the practice deemed unfair does not violate any private right. * * * In Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co., 258 U. S. 483 , 42 S. Ct. 384 , 60 L. Ed. 729 , an unfair practice was suppressed 81 * * although the method employed did not involve invasion of the' private right of any trader competed against.””
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.