Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ftc Vs. Morton Salt Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 03, 1948

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

38 entries 38 unlinked
Show
  1. FTC v. Morton
    Search
  2. Salt Co. - 334 U.S. 37 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. Morton
    Search
  3. Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37 (1948) Federal Trade Commission v. Morton
    Search
  4. aimed at the pricing practices found unlawful, and is neither too broad nor contrary to the principle of Labor Board v. Express
    Search
  5. the seller's actual savings in cost attributable to quantity sales or quantity deliveries. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Federal
    Search
  6. of the Act, and are prohibited by it whenever they have the defined effect on competition. See Federal Trade Comm'n v. Staley
    Search
  7. Corn Products Co. v. Federal
    Search
  8. Reliance for this contention chiefly rests on Labor Board v. Express
    Search
  9. pointed out that this Court had applied a similar rule to a Federal Trade Commission order in Federal Trade Comm'n v. Beech
    Search
  10. May Dep't Stores Co. v. Labor
    Search
  11. Labor Board v. Express
    Search
  12. evidence and make other findings on this phase of the case, should it conclude to do so. See Federal Trade Commission v. Royal
    Search
  13. Javierre v. Central
    Search
  14. See Moss v. Federal
    Search
  15. where the competitive injury in question was between sellers. See also Federal Trade Comm'n v. Cement
    Search
  16. the harm to competition is effected. It is enough that they 'may' have the prescribed effect. Cf. Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston
    Search
  17. United States v. Lexington
    Search
  18. least three times and as late as 1945, refused to interpret these laws as doing so. In 1922, in Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston
    Search
  19. In 1930, in International Shoe Company v. Federal
    Search
  20. with such acquisitions as probably will result in lessening competition to a substantial degree, Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston
    Search
  21. that its business . . . would probably continue to compete with that of petitioner. See Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston
    Search
  22. Corn Products Refining Company v. Federal
    Search
  23. almost absolute subservience of judicial judgment to administrative experience, cf. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. Morton
    Search
  25. Federal Trade Commission v. Morton
    Search
  26. of Labor Board v. Express
    Search
  27. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Federal
    Search
  28. See Federal Trade Comm'n v. Staley
    Search
  29. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Beech
    Search
  30. May Dep't Stores Co. v. Labor
    Search
  31. See Federal Trade Commission v. Royal
    Search
  32. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Cement
    Search
  33. Cf. Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston
    Search
  34. United States v. Lexington
    Search
  35. Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston
    Search
  36. International Shoe Company v. Federal
    Search
  37. See Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston
    Search
  38. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial