Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

381 U.S. 739

85 S. Ct. 1798

Docket No. 635.

Federal Trade Commission v. Texaco, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 7, 1965

Supreme Court of the United States · decided June 7, 1965

Held: first, that Chairman Dixon was disqualified from participating in the decision because he had indicated in a speech made while the case was pending that he had prejudged it. The majority of the court held, further, that the Commission's order was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“58 F.T.C. 1176. 10 Texaco-Goodrich also involved the question whether the Chairman of the Commission was disqualified from participating in the decision because he had indicated in a speech made while the case was pending that he had prejudged it. The Court dismissed the case because the Commission's orders were not supported by the record and because of the undue protraction of the administrative process. 11 And without the participation of the Chairman of the Commission 12 The Supreme Court excepts from its ruling oil companies able to show that they are”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Shell Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Commission

Relies on Atlantic Refining Company v. Federal Trade Commission Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company · Federal Power Commission v. Pan American Petroleum Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided June 7, 1965

How this case has been cited

Cited by 120 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Withrow v. Larkin (1975), Carafas v. J (1968)

80 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions

5501965197019801990200020102020decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, James McI. Henderson, Alvin L. Berman and Louis R. Harding, for petitioner.

Milton Handler and Frederick W. P. Lorenzen, for Texaco, Inc.

Edgar E. Barton and Macdonald Flinn, for B. F. Goodrich Co., respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

In this case the Federal Trade Commission entered a cease-and-desist order prohibiting Texaco, Inc., and the B. F. Goodrich Company from participating in any sales-commission program for the distribution of tires, batteries and accessories. The Court of Appeals set the order aside and remanded to the Commission with instructions to dismiss the complaint. The court held, first, that Chairman Dixon was disqualified from participating in the decision because he had indicated in a speech made while the case was pending that he had prejudged it. The majority of the court held, further, that the Commission's order was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Although it recognized that under these circumstances a remand would ordinarily be called for, the court concluded that because of the delays that had existed throughout the litigation the complaint should be dismissed.

¶2

The United States does not seek review of the ruling that Chairman Dixon was disqualified from participating in this case. We therefore venture no opinion as to the correctness of that conclusion. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded with instructions to remand it immediately to the Federal Trade Commission for further proceedings, without the participation of Chairman Dixon, in light of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 381 U.S. 357, 85 S.Ct. 1498 (1965). The judgment shall issue forthwith.

¶3

Vacated and remanded.

¶4

Mr. Justice GOLDBERG would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for reconsideration by the Federal Trade Commission, without the participation of Chairman Dixon, in accordance with the views expressed in Mr. Justice GOLDBERG's dissenting opinion in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 381 U.S. 382, 85 S.Ct. 1513.

¶5

Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice STEWART would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice STEWART's dissenting opinion in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 381 U.S. 377, 85 S.Ct. 1510.

/381/us/739 · .json · Public domain