FTC v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643 (1931)

U.S. Supreme Court, (May 25, 1931)

Docket number: 484

/us/283/643/case.html

Linked as:



FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

  • U.S. Supreme Court - FTC v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643 (1931)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - the Elmo Company, Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Trade Commission, Respondent., 389 F.2d 550 (D.C. Cir. 1967) Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Trade Commission, Respondent.
  • U.S. Supreme Court - Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. - Amgen, Inc., Appellant, v. United States International Trade Commission, Appellee, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Chugai Pharma U.S.A., Inc., Intervenors., 902 F.2d 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
  • U.S. Supreme Court - Chemical Mfrs. Assn. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U.S. 116 (1985)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. American International Investment Corp., Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, George Sfeir, Defendant-Appellee. Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American International Investment Corp., Inc.; George Sfeir, Defendants-Appellees., 292 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2002) S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. American International Investment Corp., Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, George Sfeir, Defendant-Appellee. Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American International Investment Corp., Inc.; George Sfeir, Defendants-Appellees.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Omnitech International, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. the Clorox Company, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee., 11 F.3d 1316 (5th Cir. 1994)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. American International Investment Corp., Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, George Sfeir, Defendant-Appellee. Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American International Investment Corp., Inc.; George Sfeir, Defendants-Appellees., 292 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2002) S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. American International Investment Corp., Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, George Sfeir, Defendant-Appellee. Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American International Investment Corp., Inc.; George Sfeir, Defendants-Appellees.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Omnitech Intern., Inc. v. Clorox Co. (5th Cir. 1994)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Omnitech Intern., Inc. v. Clorox Co. (5th Cir. 1994)

    • Text:

    U.S. Supreme Court FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643 (1931)

    [Page 283 U.S. 643, 654]

    Whether the respondent, in what it was doing, was subjecting itself to administrative or other proceeding under the statute relating to the misbranding of foods and drugs we need not now inquire, for the administration of that statute is not committed to the Federal Trade Commission.

    A proceeding under section 5 is not one instituted before the Commission by one party against another. It is instituted by the Commission itself, and is authorized whenever the Commission has reason to believe that unfair methods of competition in commerce are being used, and that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public. Acting upon its belief, the Commission issues charges and enters upon an inquiry which, of course, it has jurisdiction to make. But one of the facts necessary to support jurisdiction to make the final order to cease and desist is the existence of competition; and the Commission cannot, by assuming the existence of competition, if in fact there be none, give itself jurisdiction to make such an order. If, as a result of the inquiry, it turn out that the preliminary assumption of competition is without foundation, jurisdiction to make that order necessarily fails, and the proceeding must be dismissed by the Commission. Compare Federal Trade Comm. v. Klesner, supra, pages 29, 30 of 280 U. S., 50 S. Ct. 1, 68 A. L. R. 838. That course should have been followed here.

    The decree of the court below is affirmed. Footnotes

    Footnote 1 That unfair methods of competition in commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

    The commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, and common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, from using unfair methods of competition in commerce.

    Whenever the commission shall have reason to believe that any such person, partnership, or corporation has been or is using any unfair method of competition in commerce, and if it shall appear to the commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public, it shall issue and serve upon such person, partnership, or corporation a complaint stating its charges in that respect, and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The person, partnership, or corporation so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered by the commission requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. ... If upon such hearing the commission shall be of the opinion that the method of competition in question is prohibited by this Act, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person, partnership, or corporation an order requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from using such method of competition.


    If you are already a vLex customer, access here


    Sponsored links