Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. et al., 1966 — 383 U.S. 901 · caselaw · US
General
Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. et al.
383 U.S. 901·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
February 18, 1966.
No. 970.
Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. et al.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Daniel M. Friedman and James Mcl. Henderson for petitioner. Hammond E. Chafietz for Dean Foods Co., and L. Edward Hart, John Paul Stevens and Edward I. Rothschild for Bowfund Corp., respondents.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument on Monday, March 28, 1966.