Legal Opinion
Federal Trade Commission v. Broch
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 6, 1960No. 61PublishedCited by 108 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Douglas
■ Section 2 (c) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act,1 makes it unlawful for “any person” to make an allowance in lieu of “brokerage” to the “other party to such transaction.” The question is whether that prohibition is applicable to the following transactions by respondent.
Respondent is a broker or sales representative for a number of principals who sell food products. One of the principals is Canada Foods Ltd., a processor of apple concentrate and other products. Respondent agreed to act for the Canada Foods for a 5% commission. Other brokers working for the same…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Simplicity Pattern Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- Albert E. Robinson v. Stanley Home Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1959
- Oliver Bros. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1939
- Southgate Brokerage Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1945
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by108 opinions
- Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Federal Trade Commission v. Fred Meyer, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Lewis v. Philip Morris Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
- Calnetics Corporation and Meier-Line, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., Calnetics Corporation v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., (Five Cases)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Pete Bouldis v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
103 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.