FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
v.
TEXACO, INC., ET AL.

U.S. | 1965-06-07
No. 635
Mr.' Justice Goldberg would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for reconsideration by the Federal Trade Commission, without the participation of Chairman Dixon, in accordance with the views expressed in Mr. Justice Goldberg’s dissenting opinion in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, ante, at 382., Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Stewart’s dissenting opinion in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, ante, at 377.
381 U.S. 739 Supreme Court of the United States (1965) Negative Treatment
Cited by 42 cases

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the Federal Trade Commission for further proceedings without Chairman Dixon.

Facts & Procedural History

The Federal Trade Commission issued a cease-and-desist order against Texaco and Goodrich. The Court of Appeals set aside the order, finding Chairman D…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Cease And Desist Order Substantial Evidence Standard

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cease And Desist Order cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

In this case the Federal Trade Commission entered a cease-and-desist order prohibiting Texaco, Inc., and the B. F. Goodrich Company from participating in any sales-commission program for the distribution of tires, batteries and accessories. The Court of Appeals set the order aside and remanded to the Commission with instructions to dismiss the complaint. The court held, first, that Chairman Dixon was disqualified from participating in the decision because he had indicated in a speech made while the case was pending that he had prejudged it. The majority of the court held, further, that the Commission’s order was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Although it recognized that under these circumstances a remand would ordinarily be called for, the court concluded that because of the delays that had existed throughout the litigation the complaint should be dismissed.

The United States does not seek review of the ruling that Chairman Dixon was disqualified from participating in this case. We therefore venture no opinion as to the correctness of that conclusion. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded with instructions to remand it immediately to the Federal Trade Commission for further proceedings, without the participation of Chairman Dixon, in light of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, ante, p. 357. The judgment shall issue forthwith.

Vacated and remanded.

Mr.' Justice Goldberg would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for reconsideration by the Federal Trade Commission, without the participation of Chairman Dixon, in accordance with the views expressed in Mr. Justice Goldberg’s dissenting opinion in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, ante, at 382.

Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Stewart’s dissenting opinion in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, ante, at 377.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (20 total)

  • Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975)
    …d actively as counsel for a Senate subcommittee investigating many of the same facts and issues before the Federal Trade Commission for consideration. In Texaco, Inc. v. FTC, 118 U. S. App. D. C. 366, 336 F. 2d 754 (1964), vacated on other grounds,. 381 U. S. 739 (1965), the court found that a speech made by a commissioner clearly indicated that he had already to some extent reached a decision as to matters pending before that Commission. See also Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools, Inc. v. FTC, 138 U. S.…
  • United Steelworkers OF Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
    …. 1970), quoting Gilligan Will & Co. v. SEC, 267 F. 2d 461, 469 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 896, 80 S.Ct. 200, 4 L.Ed.2d 152 (1959); see Texaco, Inc. v. FTC, 336 F. 2d 754, 760 (D.C.Cir. 1964), vacated and remanded per curiam on other grounds, 381 U.S. 739, 85 S.Ct. 1798, 14 L.Ed.2d 714 (1965). And, although these cases involved adjudication, we could perhaps logically apply them to hybrid rule-making proceedings like the present one in which the factual predicates' of final rules are subject to revie…
  • Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
    …the Chairman of the FTC which appeared to refer to an adjudication then pending before the Commission indicated that he had prejudged the case. Similarly, in Texaco, Inc. v. FTC, 336 F. 2d 754 (D.C.Cir. 1964), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 381 U.S. 739, 85 S.Ct. 1798, 14 L.Ed.2d 714 (1965), Chairman Dixon gave a speech in which he referred to cases which were before the Commission. The Court ruled that “a disinterested reader of Chairman Dixon’s speech could hardly fail to conclude that he had in…

Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw