FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

v.

HAMMOND, SNYDER & COMPANY; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BALTIMORE GRAIN COMPANY; AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. H. C. JONES COMPANY, INC.

Citator

Cited By

• United States Ex rel. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Powelson, 319 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1943)
  …awassee River Power Co., 171 N. C. 248, 88 S. E. 349 (1916), 175 N. C. 668, 96 S. E. 99 (1918), 186 N. C. 179, 119 S. E. 213 (1923), 188 N. C. 128, 123 S.E. 312 (1924); Hiawassee River Power Co. v. Carolina-Tennessee Power Co., 252 U. S. 341 (1920), 267 U. S. 586 (1925). See examples and citation of cases in Reichelderfer v. Quinn, supra, at 319. The validity of the principle adopted by the majority opinion may be tested against hypothetical cases such as the following: 1. 0 owns a dock projecting into a…
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1927)
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Bowman, 248 F.2d 456 (7th Cir. 1957)
  …be construed to mean the production of all documentary evidence relating to any matter under investigation. The defendant cites and relies upon the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Baltimore Grain Co., D. C. Maryland, 1922, 284 F. 886, affirmed 267 U.S. 586, 45 S.Ct. 461, 69 L.Ed. 800. In that case the Commission sought mandamus to compel the respondent corporations to permit the agents of the Commission to examine, inspect and copy their records and documents. That is not the situation here. Section 9…

Authorities Cited

• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Am. Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1924)