Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 380 U.S. 374 - Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

831
cited by 831 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

422 federal appellate · 73 district · 91 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 831 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)

422 federal appellate · 73 district · 91 state decisions — followed in 21 states

26901965197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedColgate-Palmolive Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 2101

Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Rodriguez v. New York · Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States · Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting 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 831 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “within the meaning of the Act. This Court has frequently stated that the Commission's judgment is to be given great weight by reviewing courts. This admonition is especially true with respect to allegedly deceptive advertising since the finding of a Sec. 5 violation in this field rests so heavily on inference and pragmatic judgment. Nevertheless, while informed judicial determination is dependent upon enlightenment gained from administrative experience, in the last analysis the words”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, are declared unlawful.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “reasonable relation to the unlawful practices found to exist.”
    7 later decisions 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.