Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Am. Tobacco Co., 274 U.S. 543 (1927). · Go Syfert
Search
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Am. Tobacco Co., 274 U.S. 543 (1927). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: International Aircraft v. Unidentified Wrecked (ca11, 2000-07-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1927 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1927 1976 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) International Aircraft v. Unidentified Wrecked
11th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
It is enough if, under the circumstances, any prudent man would have accepted.” Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 611, 613 , 47 S. Ct. 663, 664 (1927) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1958 · confidence medium
As stated in Federal Trade Comm'n v. American Tobacco Co., 274 U. S. 543, 544 (1927), although "[t]he statement of the petition for certiorari that the judgment and opinion below might seriously hinder future administration of the law was grave and sufficiently probable to justify issuance of the writ," it now appears that "[p]roper decision of the controversy depends upon a question of fact," and therefore "we adhere to the usual rule of non-interference where conclusions of Circuit Courts of Appeals depend on appreciation of circumstances which admit of different interpretations." Moreover, …
cited Cited "see" Puamier v. BARGE BT 1793
E.D. Va. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Merritt & Chapman Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 611, 613 , 47 S.Ct. 663 , 71 L.Ed. 1232 (1927).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Federal Trade Commission
v.
American Tobacco Company
279.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 31, 1927.
274 U.S. 543
Mr. Adrien F. Busick, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell, and Messrs. Bayard T. Hainer and Edward L. Smith were on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. Edward S. Rogers, with whom Mr. Jonathan H. Holmes was on the brief, for respondent.
McReynolds.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
[*544] Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The statement of the petition for certiorari that the judgment and opinion below might seriously hinder future administration of' the law was grave and sufficiently probable to justify issuance of the writ.

Proper decision óf the controversy depends upon a question of fact. Did the American Tobacco- Company becomé party to the unlawful combination of.tobacco jobbers at Philadelphia to maintain prices? After considering much' evidence the Commission gave affirmative answer to that query; but the Circuit Court of Appeals thought there was nothing to support their view. 9 Fed. (2d) 570.

It now appears to us that this matter of fact is of no general importance. Accordingly, we adhere to the usual rule of non-interference where conclusions of Circuit Courts of Appeals depend on appreciation of circumstances which admit of different interpretations. And upon that ground alone we affirm the judgment below.

The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals is of uncertain intendment and is not satisfactory as an exposition of the law. What this Court has said in many opinions indicates cléarly enough the general purpose of the statute and the necessity of applying it with strict regard thereto-

Affirmed.