Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 460 F.2d 605 - Federal Trade Commission v. Gibson

Federal Trade Commission v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis

460 F.2d 605 · 1972

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
August 2005
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2005 · most notably Federal Trade Commission v. Texaco, Inc. Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Company. Federal Trade Commission v. The Superior Oil Company, Inc., a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Exxon Corporation, a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Shell Oil Company, a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Company of California, a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Mobil Oil Corporation, a Corporation (1977), United States v. Gordon (1978)

24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2201972198019902000decided

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) · 15 U.S.C. § 49 (§ 9 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 5 U.S.C. § 901 (Reorganization Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 903

Relies on Oklahoma Press Pub Co v. Walling US News Printing Co · Cudahy Packing Co. v. Holland · United States v. Marshall Durbin & Co. of Haleyville, Inc.

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

  1. “Congress has authorized the Administrator, rather than the district courts in the first instance, to determine the question of coverage in the preliminary investigation of possibly existing violations; in doing so , to exercise his subpoena power for securing evidence upon that question, by seeking the production of petitioners’ relevant books, records and papers; and, in case of refusal to obey his subpoena, issued according to the statute’s authorization, to have the aid of the district court in enforcing it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The rationale of the Oklahoma Press rule is that it allows enforcement of subpoenas where the evidence necessary to establish the interstate nature of the commerce involved is in the possession of the suspected violator and can be secured only by such a subpoena. Under this rule appellants may not litigate the jurisdictional issue as a defense in a subpoena enforcement proceeding.””
    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.