Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ftc Vs. Cement Institute

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 26, 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

80 entries 1 linked 79 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Reading US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1855
  2. FTC v. Cement
    Search
  3. Institute - 333 U.S. 683 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. Cement
    Search
  4. Institute, 333 U.S. 683 (1948) Federal Trade Commission v. Cement
    Search
  5. these proceedings after having expressed the view that industrywide use of the basing point system was illegal. Tumey v. Ohio
    Search
  6. statement may have been only the writer's conclusion. P. 333 U. S. 706 . 8. Cement Mfrs. Protective Assn. v. United
    Search
  7. of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. Corn Products Co. v. Federal
    Search
  8. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Staley
    Search
  9. Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz
    Search
  10. U. S. 421 , 253 U. S. 427 . In 1921, the Court, in Federal Trade Commission v. Beech
    Search
  11. the conduct in question was practically identical with that previously declared unlawful in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John
    Search
  12. D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 , and United States v. Schrader's
    Search
  13. of the Sherman Act. Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific
    Search
  14. the Sherman Act could be suppressed by the Commission as an unfair method of competition. Fashion Originators' Guild v. Federal
    Search
  15. order against them under Count I of the complaint. For this contention, they chiefly rely on Federal Trade Commission v. Bunte
    Search
  16. Court of Appeals one year before that court reviewed the merits of the Commission's order. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co. v. Federal
    Search
  17. first basing point unfair trade proceeding would similarly disqualify them from ever passing on another. See Morgan v. United
    Search
  18. use of the basing point system was illegal. A number of cases are cited as giving support to this contention. Tumey v. Ohio
    Search
  19. Act, 48 Stat. 195, held invalid by this Court Page 333 U. S. 704 May 27, 1935, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United
    Search
  20. it tends reasonably to show the purpose and character of the particular transactions under scrutiny. Standard Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  21. and aided its member companies to carry it straight on through and beyond the NRA period. See Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Federal
    Search
  22. have never been restricted by the Page 333 U. S. 706 rigid rules of evidence. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird
    Search
  23. refusal to enforce this order. The Old Cement Case. -- This Court's opinion in Cement Mfrs.' Protective Assn. v. United
    Search
  24. Id. at 268 U. S. 606 . In the Old Cement case and in Maple Flooring Mfrs.' Assn. v. United
    Search
  25. Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal
    Search
  26. a like one with reference to evidence and findings in a civil suit brought under the Sherman Act in Sugar Institute v. United
    Search
  27. Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific
    Search
  28. Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam
    Search
  29. Co., 283 U. S. 643 , 283 U. S. 647 , 283 U. S. 650 . And see Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam
    Search
  30. United States v. United
    Search
  31. Sugar Institute v. United
    Search
  32. by respondents in support of their contentions were considered by this Court and rejected in 1945 in Corn Products Co. v. Federal
    Search
  33. that this Court had approved the system in Maple Flooring Mfrs.' Assn. v. United
    Search
  34. States, 268 U. S. 563 , and in Cement Mfrs.' Protective Assn. v. United
    Search
  35. precise in order that they may be understood by those against whom they are directed. See Illinois Commerce Commission v. Thomson
    Search
  36. in the choice of remedies to cope with trade problems entrusted to it by the Commission Act. Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal
    Search
  37. paragraph 1, to which objection is here raised, and paragraph 5, which was sustained as proper in Federal Trade Comm'n v. Beech-Nut
    Search
  38. Together with No. 24, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Aetna
    Search
  39. No. 25, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Marquette
    Search
  40. No. 26, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Calaveras
    Search
  41. No. 27, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Huron
    Search
  42. No. 28, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Superior
    Search
  43. No. 29, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Northwestern
    Search
  44. No. 30, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Riverside
    Search
  45. No. 31, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Universal
    Search
  46. No. 32, Federal Trade Comm'n v. California
    Search
  47. No. 33, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Monolith
    Search
  48. Portland Cement Co. et al., and No. 34, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Smith
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. Cement
    Search
  50. Federal Trade Commission v. Cement
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial