RH MacY & Company v. Tinley
District Court, District of Columbia
1Opinion of the Court
CORCORAN, District Judge.
I
Having grounds to believe that woolen sweaters manufactured in Italy and imported into the United States were mislabeled as to their mohair content, the Federal Trade Commission (herein the Commission) commenced an investigation to determine whether or not such sweaters were being imported in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 68-68j).
The Commission conducted an industry-wide investigation which led to cease and desist orders being entered by consent against numerous importers. The Commission offered the plaintiff R. H. Macy & Company, Inc.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Leedom v. KyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Moog Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Amos Treat & Co., Inc. v. Securities and Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
- The Elmo Division of Drive-X Company, Inc. v. Paul Rand Dixon, the Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
- Securities and Exchange Commission, William L. Cary v. R. A. Holman & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1963
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ralph Nader, Esquire, and Center for Auto Safety, Inc. v. John Volpe, Individually, and as Secretary of the Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Robert D. Barnes v. George W. Chatterton, Regional Appeals Examiner, Director Philadelphia Region, United States Civil Service CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- United States v. Litton Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
- Canterbury Career School, Inc. v. RileyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1993
- Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.