Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Coe’s Empirical Analysis
96 F.2d 518 · 1938
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 1971 · most notably Hammond v. Hull (1942), Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939)
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · United States v. Chemical Foundation, 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The following tests have been used to uphold the exercise of judicial restraint upon executive action under valid laws: (1) Where an officer, insisting that he has the warrant of the statute, is transcending its bounds, and thus unlawfully assuming to exercise the power of government (Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, supra [ 223 U.S. 605 , 32 S.Ct. 340 , 56 L.Ed. 570 ]); (2) where an officer attempts to enlarge his power, or to usurp power (Waite v. Macy, supra [ 246 U.S. 606 , 38 S.Ct. 395 , 62 L.Ed. 892 ]); or (3) where his act is based upon a clear mistake of law (American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94 , 109, 110, 23 S.Ct. 33 , 47 L.Ed. 90 ); (4) where the action of the officer or administrative body is clearly beyond its power- and in violation of the statute (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 216 U.S. 538 , 30 S.Ct. 417 , 54 L.Ed. 608 . See Lane v. Watts, 234 U.S. 525 , 540, 34 S.Ct. 965 , 58 L.Ed. 1440 ; Santa Fé Pacific R. Co. v. Lane, 244 U.S. 492 , 497, 37 S.Ct. 714 , 61 L.Ed. 1275 ); (5) where an officer has acted, or threatens to act, in a capricious and arbitrary manner (Commercial Solvents Corp. v. Mellon, 51 App.D.C. 146 , 277 F. 548 , 550, and cases there cited); (6) where the act of the officer, ‘under any view that could be taken of the facts that were laid before him, was ultra vires, and beyond the scope of his authority (and) he has no power at all to do the act complained of, he is as much subject to an injunct”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Subsequently, on November 20, 1931, the Prescott Company as defendant in a suit theretofore commenced by appellant in the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey involving another mark filed an amended counterclaim praying that the Proctor & Gamble Company be required to deliver up its trade-mark”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“), under section 13 of the Trade-Mark Act 1905, 15 U.S.C.A. § 93 , seeking to cancel the registration of appellant's (the Proctor & Gamble Company's) trade-mark”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.