Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 348 F.2d 342 - The Elmo Division of Drive-X Company, Inc. v. Paul Rand Dixon, the Federal Trade Commission

The Elmo Division of Drive-X Company, Inc. v. Paul Rand Dixon, the Federal Trade Commission’s Empirical Analysis

348 F.2d 342 · 1965

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
1
states following
May 2011
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably City of Rochester v. Bond (1979), Sterling Drug Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1971)

49 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

590196519701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Leedom v. Kyne · Vitarelli v. Seaton · American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board · Whitney National Bank in Jefferson Parish v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We see no reason to bar District Court jurisdiction here, for relief in that court is appellant’s only effective remedy * * *. The prospect of ultimate appellate review of any final order issuing out of the new complaint proceeding is not adequate * * At 344.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he type of procedural error [appellees] assert[] is not of a kind which affects the [Board's] substantive findings; no one suggests that the [Board's] * * * procedure is unreliable as a fact-finding mechanism.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “not to the fact of the [Board's] making an initial substantive determination but rather to the process by which it has chosen to do so.”
    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.