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.
Benrus Watch Co., Inc., et al. v. Federal Trade Commission; and Seigmeister v. Federal Trade Commission, 1966 — 384 U.S. 939 · caselaw · US
General
Benrus Watch Co., Inc., et al. v. Federal Trade Commission; and Seigmeister v. Federal Trade Commission
384 U.S. 939·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
No. 1080.
No. 1081.
Benrus Watch Co., Inc., et al. v. Federal Trade Commission; and Seigmeister v. Federal Trade Commission.
Harry I. Rand for petitioners in No. 1080. Harold W. Wolfram for petitioner in No. 1081. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert B. Hummel, Milton J. Grossman, James Mcl. Henderson, Miles J. Brown and John Gordon Underwood for respondent in both cases.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 352 F. 2d 313.