Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Milling Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

172 federal appellate · 9 district · 6 state decisions

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 244 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Sec. 5. (a) Unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. “The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations * * * from using unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.” 52 Stat. 111 , 112, 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (a). “(c) * * * The findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusivo.” 52 Stat. 112 , 113; 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (c). “Sec. 12. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation to disseminate, or cause to be disseminated, any false advertisement— “(1) By United States mails, or in commerce by any means, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly the purchase of food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics; or “(2) Ry any means, for the purpose of inducing, or width is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase in commerce of food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics. “(b) The dissemination or the causing to be disseminated of any false advertisement within the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce within the meaning of section 5.” 52 Stat. 114 , 115, 15 U.S.C.A. § 52 . “Sec. 15. For the purposes of sections 12, 13 and 14— “(a) Tlie term ‘false advertisement’ means an advertisement, other than labeling, which is misleading in a material r”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Commission · Irwin v. Federal Trade Commission

2. ““should not be ordered if less drastic means will accomplish the same result. The orders should go no further than is reasonably necessary to correct the evil and preserve the rights of competitors and public; and this can be done * * * by requiring proper qualifying words to be used in immediate connection with the names.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Commission · Elliot Knitwear, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

3. “If consumers or dealers prefer to purchase a given article because it was made by a particular manufacturer or class of manufacturers, they have a right to do so, and this right cannot be satisfied by imposing upon them an exactly similar article, or one equally as good, but having a different origin.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.