Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ftc Vs. Colgate-palmolive Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 05, 1965

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

44 entries 44 unlinked
Show
  1. FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive
    Search
  2. Co. - 380 U.S. 374 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive
    Search
  3. Co., 380 U.S. 374 (1965) Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive
    Search
  4. court of appeals reiterates Page 380 U. S. 379 its previous objection. As was said in Federal Power Comm'n v. Idaho
    Search
  5. To the same effect, see Federal Trade Comm'n v. Minneapolis-Honeywell
    Search
  6. Commission's decision on a theory of its own, something the Court said it would not do in Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery
    Search
  7. and the time within which certiorari had to be requested dates from the second judgment. See Federal Trade Comm'n v. Minneapolis-Honeywell
    Search
  8. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Motion
    Search
  9. practice seems more in line with the decided cases than that of respondents. This Court said in Federal Trade Comm'n v. Algoma
    Search
  10. even though the misstatement in no way affects the qualities of the product. As was said in Federal Trade Comm'n v. Royal
    Search
  11. infer that the deception will constitute a material factor in a purchaser's decision to buy. See Federal Trade Comm'n v. Raladam
    Search
  12. in determining the type of order that is necessary to cope with the unfair practices found, e.g., Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal
    Search
  13. that Congress has placed the primary responsibility for fashioning orders upon the Commission, Federal Trade Comm'n v. National
    Search
  14. the Commission's orders. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Cement
    Search
  15. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Cement
    Search
  16. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Henry
    Search
  17. Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United
    Search
  18. respondents from engaging in similarly illegal practices in future advertisements. As was said in Federal Trade Comm'n v. Ruberoid
    Search
  19. Federal Trade Comm'n v. National
    Search
  20. Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery
    Search
  21. Federal Communications Comm'n v. Pottsville
    Search
  22. See Labor Board v. Donnelly
    Search
  23. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Motion
    Search
  24. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Raladam
    Search
  25. See Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  26. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Pacific
    Search
  27. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Standard
    Search
  28. Kalwajtys v. Federal
    Search
  29. Kerran v. Federal
    Search
  30. Trade Comm'n, 265 F.2d 246 (C.A.10th Cir. 1959), cert. denied sub nom. Double Eagle Ref. Co. v. Federal
    Search
  31. Mohawk Ref. Corp. v. Federal
    Search
  32. E.g., Niresk Industries, Inc. v. Federal
    Search
  33. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Ruberoid
    Search
  34. Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal
    Search
  35. U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive
    Search
  36. Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive
    Search
  37. Federal Power Comm'n v. Idaho
    Search
  38. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Minneapolis-Honeywell
    Search
  39. See Federal Trade Comm'n v. Minneapolis-Honeywell
    Search
  40. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Algoma
    Search
  41. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Royal
    Search
  42. See Federal Trade Comm'n v. Raladam
    Search
  43. the Commission, Federal Trade Comm'n v. National
    Search
  44. Double Eagle Ref. Co. v. Federal
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial