Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., Lancaster, Ohio v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 124 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1941). · Go Syfert
Search
Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., Lancaster, Ohio v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 124 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1941). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Shapland v. Commissioner (tax, 1979-08-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1943 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1943 1984 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Shapland v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933) ; Rule 142, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure ; see Calafato v. Commissioner, 42 B.T.A. 881 (1940) , affd. per curiam 124 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1941) .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Shanman
D.S.C. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See, United States v. Bank of Commerce & Trust Co., 32 F.Supp. 942 (D.C.W.D.Tenn., 1940), affirmed 124 F.2d 187 (C.A.6); United States v. Bosk, 180 F. Supp. 869 (D.C.S.D.Fla.).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Frederic P. Holbrook, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Mitchell H. Hewitt, Bunkrupt v. United States
9th Cir. · 1960 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. Bank of Commerce, D.C.W.D.Tenn.1940, 32 F.Supp. 942, 946-947 , affirmed per curiam, 6 Cir., 1941, 124 F.2d 187 , with Joyce v. Gentsch, 6 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 891 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ANCHOR HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION, LANCASTER, OHIO, and W. H. Peterson, Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent
9062.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Dec 4, 1941.
124 F.2d 187
Deffenbaugh & Miller, of Lancaster, Ohio, for petitioners., W. T. Kelley, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Published
PER CURIAM.

Upon application of the petitioners herein, and it being brought to the attention of this court that subsequent to the filing herein of the petition for review, the respondent, Federal Trade Commission, has issued a modified order to cease and desist, it is therefore ordered that said petition for review be, and the same is hereby, dismissed with costs to the petitioners.