Legal Opinion
Justin Haynes & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided July 10, 1939No. 359PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
The petitioner is a New York corporation which sells and distributes in interstate , ^ , £ A • t_ commerce under the trade name of Aspirub a medical preparation for external use con_ taini L5 cent of aspirin. It has ad_ vertised the curative properties of its prep_ aration in glowing terms, placing special stress upon the aspirin constituent. In March, 1936, the Commission filed a complaint against the petitioner charging that
its advertising was false and deceptive and constituted unfair methods of competition in commerce contrary to the provisions of the Federal Trade…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
3Cited by16 opinions
- Charles of the Ritz Distributors Corp. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Maurice J. Feil and Leo a Loeb, Individually and as Co-Partners Trading as the Enurtone Company v. Federal Trande CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- Carter Products, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Olson v. Board of Ed. of U. Free Sch. Dist. No. 12, Malverne, NYDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1966
- Dr. W. B. Caldwell, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.