Exquisite Form Brassiere, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission’s Empirical Analysis
301 F.2d 499 · 1961
Citation profile
21 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 1998
21 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. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Federal Trade Commission v. Simplicity Pattern Co. · Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. v. Gus Blass Co. · Titus v. United States
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce to pay or contract for the payment of anything of value to or for the benefit of a customer of such person in the course of such commerce as compensation or in consideration for any services or facilities furnished by or through such customer in connection with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of any products or commodities manufactured, sold, or offered for sale by such person, unless such payment or consideration is available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing in the distribution of such products or commodities.” ( 15 U.S.C. Sec. 13 (d).)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The point of general interest upon this appeal is whether a defense of meeting competition in good faith, described in the proviso in Subsection (b) of the statute, is available in response to a charge 1 of violating Subsection (d). All parties seem to agree that the defense thus described is available in response to charges under Subsections (a) [discrimination in price] and (e) [discrimination in furnishing services or facilities] . Is it available to a person charged under Subsection (d) ? * * * The parties agree that no court has yet passed directly on this question. * * * The critical words used in the proviso are ‘the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser’. These are the words which appear in Subsection (e). The words in Subsection (d) are ‘to pay * * * to * * * a customer * * * as compensation * * * for any services or facilities furnished, by * * * such customer’. (Emphasis added.) While ‘services or facilities’ are the subject of both subsections, in the one case ((e)) the vendor furnishes them to the customer; in the other they are furnished by the customer and the vendor reimburses him. So that, if careful note is taken of the difference between Subsections (d) and (e), and if Subsection (b) rs read quite literally, the language of the statute appears to support the •view of the Commission. That is, read-'thus the statute says that a person can meet competition by directly supplying some but not all customers with services and facilities with which”
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.