Legal Opinion

John Bene & Sons, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 8, 1924PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Under the Curtis Publishing Co. Case, 260 U. S. 568, 43 Sup. Ct. 210, 67 L. Ed. 408, we “must inquire whether the Commission’s findings of fact are supported by evidence,” and this inquiry includes an ascertainment of what kind of evidence, or evidence so called, the fact-findings rest ujpon. If by evidence is meant testimonial matter legally competent, relevant, pertinent, and material, this record contains very little ,of that kind.

It was plainly desirable, as Bene manufactured hydrogen peroxide, to compare Daxol with the other preparation, and on this…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Federal Trade Commission v. Curtis Publishing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. L. B. Silver Co. v. Federal Trade Commission of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1923

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division of the Department of LaborSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  3. Hills Bros. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926
  4. Dolcin Corp. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1955
  5. Ellers v. Railroad Retirement BoardCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API