FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
v.
AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Federal Trade Commission challenged whether the American Tobacco Company became party to an unlawful price-fixing combination among Philadelphia tobacco jobbers. Although the FTC found evidence supporting its position, the Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court of Appeals' reversal, applying the standard rule that appellate courts defer to lower courts' factual findings when the evidence admits of different interpretations and presents no matter of general importance.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Dick v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 359 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1959)…e decision of the Court of Appeals reflected a bias in favor of an insurance company. On the contrary, animadversion against the complete disinterestedness of the court was disavowed.at the bar. ' - See Federal Trade Comm’n v. American Tobacco Co., 274 U. S. 543.…
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co., 340 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1951)…n such situations we should “adhere to the usual rule of noninterference where conclusions of Circuit Courts of Appeals depend on appreciation of circumstances which admit of different, interpretations.” Federal Trade Comm’n v. American Tobacco Co., 274 U. S. 543, 544. Affirmed. * Since we do not disturb the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that these letters are not substantial evidence of an unfair labor practice under the Wagner Act, we express no opinion on the possible effect of § 8 (c) of the Taft…
-
Magenau v. Aetna Freight Lines, Inc., 360 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1959)…er, exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction requires that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed as improvidently granted. See, e. g., Labor Board v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 340 U. S. 498, 502-503; Federal Trade Comm’n v. American Tobacco Co., 274 U. S. 543. Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 499; Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U. S. 33, 39; MacGregor v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co., 315 U. S. 280, 281; Helvering v. Stuart, 317 U. S. 154, 162-163, modified on other grounds, 317 U. S. 602; Palmer…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Tobacco Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 9 F.2d 570 (2d Cir. 1925)
- Baltimore S.S. Co. v. Phillips, 270 U.S. 638 (U.S. 1926)