Supreme Court of the United States, 1955

Federal Trade Commission v. Rhodes Pharmacal Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 14, 1955

348 U.S. 940; 99 L. Ed. 736; 75 S. Ct. 361; 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1542; 1955 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,956 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Daniel M. Friedman argued the cause for petitioner., With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Barnes, Charles F. Barber, Earl W. Kintner and Robert B. Dawkins., Edward Brodkey argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Frank E. Gettleman and Arthur Gettleman.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision. The 15 that cite it most often are listed here.

Kraft, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (7th Cir. 1992)
United States v. 22 Rectangular or Cylindrical Finished Devices (District Court, D. Utah 1989)
United States v. Articles of Drug (United States District Court, Nebraska 1986)
United States v. Sene X Eleemosynary Corp., Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1979)
National Commission on Egg Nutrition and Richard Weiner, Inc., Petitioners v. Federal Trade Commission (7th Cir. 1978)
Floersheim v. Weinburger (District Court, District of Columbia 1972)
Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc., Stephen Corporation, Vincent Melzac v. Federal Trade Commission (D.C. Cir. 1970)
United States v. Standard Distributors, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1967)
Giant Food Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (D.C. Cir. 1963)
State v. Mastrian (Minn. 1963)
Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Rogers Imports, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1963)
Bakers Franchise Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission (3d Cir. 1962)
Bakers Franchise Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission (3d Cir. 1962)
Worley v. Dunn (6th Cir. 1958)
James H. Sewell, Doing Business Under the Fictitious Firm Name and Style of Burns Cuboid Company v. Federal Trade Commission (9th Cir. 1956)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Certiorari, 348 U. S. 812, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Per Curiam:

The Court finds that the order of the Commission is not ambiguous. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, insofar as it modified paragraph 1 (c) of the Commission's order, is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with instructions to restore the order of the Commission.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.