Supreme Court of the United States, 1965

Federal Trade Commission v. Texaco, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 7, 1965 · Goldberg, Trade, Dixon, Refining, Comm'N, Harlan, Stewart

381 U.S. 739; 14 L. Ed. 2d 714; 85 S. Ct. 1798; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2422; 1965 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,465 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, James Mel. Henderson, Alvin L. Berman and Louis R. Harding for petitioner., Milton Handler and Frederick W. P. Lorenzen for Texaco, Inc., and Edgar E. Barton and Macdonald Flinn for B. F. Goodrich Co., respondents.

Cases that cite this one

45 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.

Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Financial Solutions & Associates v. Carnahan (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)
Earle A. Partington v. Joseph M. Gedan Howard T. Chang (9th Cir. 1989)
Chandler v. City of Lanett (Ala. 1982)
John N. Mitchell v. Honorable John J. Sirica, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1974)
American Cyanamid Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (6th Cir. 1966)
Adrian Antoniu v. Securities and Exchange Commission (8th Cir. 1989)
Butler v. DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS (La. 1992)
Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987)
State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Fulkerson (Colo. App. 1984)
United Steelworkers Of America, Afl-Cio-Clc v. F. Ray Marshall (D.C. Cir. 1981)
Henderson v. Bentley (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1980)
Lead Industries Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency (D.C. Cir. 1980)
United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (District Court, District of Columbia 1978)
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Sun Oil Co. (District Court, W.D. Texas 1977)
Michael Levy D/B/A Mike's Market v. United States (6th Cir. 1973)
Associated Press v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc., Stephen Corporation, Vincent Melzac v. Federal Trade Commission (D.C. Cir. 1970)
Richard S. Simpson v. Union Oil Company of California (9th Cir. 1969)
Federal Trade Commission v. Texaco Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1968)
Skelly Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission (10th Cir. 1967)

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

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 *754 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.

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