green
Positive treatment
17.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States of America v. Consumer Law Protection, LLC
Collier & Son Corp. v. F.T.C., 427 F.2d 261, 267-268 (6th Cir. 1970) (permitting a common enterprise theory of liability in FTC Act cases); New Mexico ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Trade Commission v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc.
Collier & Son Corp. v. F.T.C., 427 F.2d 261, 270 (6th Cir.1970), considered a number of similar factors to find that a parent company “so dominated and controlled the acts of its ... subsidiaries, that the corporate identities of the latter [could] be ignored, and the parent held vicariously liable for their acts.” The Court found that “many of the men who directed the policy and operations of [the parent company] also directed the policy and operations of its wholly-owned subsidiaries,” id. at 267-68 , and that the subsidiaries were created, dissolved, and replaced “often for purpos…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Trade Commission v. Payday Financial LLC
Collier & Son Corp. v. F.T.C., 427 F.2d 261, 267 (6th Cir.1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Trade Commission v. National Urological Group, Inc.
(2×)
Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261, 266 (6th Cir.1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Trade Commission v. Citigroup Inc.
(2×)
Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261, 272 (6th Cir.1970)(noting that “[t]he question of successorship is one of fact”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
FTC v. Citigrpoup, Inc.
(2×)
Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261, 272 (6th Cir.1970)(noting that "[t]he question of successorship is one of fact").
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Shelton Wholesale, Inc.
Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261, 267 (6th Cir.1970)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jenkins v. Union Corp.
Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261, 267 (6th Cir.1970) (“[Wjhere the public interest is involved, as it is in the enforcement of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, a strict adherence to common law principles is not required in the determination of whether a parent should be held for the acts of its subsidiary, where strict adherence would enable the corporate device to be used to circumvent the policy of the statute.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Behunin v. Dow Chemical Co.
Collier v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261, 271 (6th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 926 , 91 S.Ct. 188 , 27 L.Ed.2d 186 (1970) (FTC can "subject a dissolved corporation to an injunction in order to reach a successor corporation through which unlawful practices may be continued"); Moore v. Nicks Finer Foods, Inc., 121 Ill.App.3d 923 , 77 Ill.Dec. 364, 366 , 460 N.E.2d 420, 422 (1984) (extending post-dissolution time period for minors to within two years after attainment of majority age).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
First State Bank of Wayne County (Formerly City and County Bank of Wayne County) v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Collier & Son Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 427 F.2d 261, 275 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 926 , 91 S.Ct. 188 , 27 L.Ed.2d 186 (1970); see also Zale Corp. and Corrigan-Republic, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 473 F.2d 1317, 1320 (5th Cir.1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. ACB Sales & Service, Inc.
Collier & Son Corporation v. F.T.C., 427 F.2d 261, 271 (5th Cir.1971).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Advance MacHine Co.
Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261, 267 (6th Cir. 1970)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Borden, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
(2×)
C., 427 F.2d 261, 276 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 926 , 91 S.Ct. 188 , 27 L.Ed.2d 186 (1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
But “a strict adherence to common law principles is not required in the determination of whether a parent should be held for the acts of its subsidiary, where strict adherence would enable the corporate device to be used to circumvent the policy of the statute.” P. F. Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261, 267 (6th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Porter & Dietsch, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
In any event, when the safety of consumers is involved, as it is here, we would not preclude the Commission from imposing such a sanction simply because it failed to do so years before in another case. 16 85 The fact that other firms in the market are not similarly burdened does not affect the validity of this order. " 'The purpose of Commission orders is not to put those employing deceptive acts or practices In pari delicto with each other.' " Spiegel, Inc. v. FTC, 494 F.2d 59, 64 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, 419 U.S. 896 , 95 S.Ct. 175 , 42 L.Ed.2d 140 (1974) (quoting Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Porter & Dietsch, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
In any event, when the safety of consumers is involved, as it is here, we would not preclude the Commission from imposing such a sanction simply because it failed to do so years before in another case. 16 The fact that other firms in the market are not similarly burdened does not affect the validity of this order. “ ‘The purpose of Commission orders is not to put those employing deceptive acts or practices in pari delicto with each other.’ ” Spiegel, Inc. v. FTC, 494 F.2d 59, 64 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 896 , 95 S.Ct. 175 , 42 L.Ed.2d 140 (1974) (quoting Collier & Son Corp. v…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. DeCotis
(2×)
P. F. Collier & Son Corp. v. Federal Trade Commn. 427 F. 2d 261, 275-276 (6th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Spiegel, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
(2×)
We note again the Cardozo statement, 291 U.S. at p. 79 , at 54 S.Ct. at p. 320 of Algoma, that 'the Commission was not organized to drag the standards down.' See also the Sixth Circuit's statement in Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261, 276 (1970): 'The purpose of Commission orders is not to put those employing deceptive acts or practices in pari delicto with each other.' That Spiegel's competitors were worse does not require that Spiegel be permitted to continue the deception found by the Commission. 28 For the reasons given the Commission's order is affirmed, and we direct its enforceme…
discussed
Cited "see"
Mid-West Paper Products Company, in No. 78-1736 v. Continental Group, Inc., American Bag and Paper Corporation, Chase Bag Company, Harley Corporation, St. Regis Paper Company. Shopping Cart, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, in No. 78-1746 v. Continental Group, Inc., American Bag and Paper Corporation, Chase Bag Company, Harley Corporation, St. Regis Paper Company. 86th Street Food Specialty, Inc., C. G. Dairies, Inc. And 3 J's Farms, Inc., in No. 78-1776 v. Continental Group, Inc., American Bag and Paper Corporation, Chase Bag Company, Harley Corporation, St. Regis Paper Company. Murray's of Baederwood, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, in No. 78-1796 v. Continental Group, Inc., American Bag and Paper Corporation, Chase Bag Company, Harley Corporation, St. Regis Paper Company
See 15 U.S.C. § 16 60 579 F.2d at 18-19 61 Id. at 19 62 See, e. g., P. F. Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261 , 266-67 (6 Cir.), Cert. denied, 400 U.S. 926 , 91 S.Ct. 188 , 27 L.Ed.2d 186 (1970).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Van Raalte Co.
See P. F. Collier & Son Corp. v. F.T.C., 427 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1970).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mid-West Paper Products Co. v. Continental Group, Inc.
See, e. g., P. F. Collier & Son Corp. v. FTC, 427 F.2d 261 , 266-67 (6 Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 926 , 91 S.Ct. 188 , 27 L.Ed.2d 186 (1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Curtis Davis, Fred Davis, Leon Davis, and Moody Davis, D/B/A Pelahatchie Poultry Company
v.
United States of America, and Clifford M. Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture
v.
United States of America, and Clifford M. Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture
27712.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 18, 1970.
Published
Curtis DAVIS, Fred Davis, Leon Davis, and Moody Davis, d/b/a Pelahatchie Poultry Company, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, and Clifford M. Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture, Appellees.
No. 27712.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 18, 1970.
E. Grady Jolly, Jr., C. Arthur Sullivan, Jackson, Miss., Sullivan, Bishop, Jolly & Blount, Jackson, Miss., for appellants.
John N. Mitchell, Atty. Gen. of the United States, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Alan S. Rosenthal, Washington, D. C., Neil Brooks, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Raymond W. Fullerton, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Paul M. Donovan, Atty., Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[*~261]1
The petitioners seek review of a decision of the Judicial Officer of the Department of Agriculture, acting for the Secretary of Agriculture, issued under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S. C.A. § 181 et seq. The controlling issue is whether the Department of Agriculture is authorized by § 203 of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 193, to hold a hearing and issue a cease and desist order with respect to a live poultry dealer or handler who violates § 202 of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 192.
[*~269]2
In Arkansas Valley Industries, Inc. v. Freeman, 415 F.2d 713 (1969) the Eighth Circuit recently considered and decided this question. It answered in the negative. We agree.
[*~274]3
The decision and order of the Secretary of Agriculture in the case now under review will therefore be set aside.
[*~275]4
So ordered.