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.
Moog Industries, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, 1957 — 353 U.S. 908 · caselaw · US
General
Moog Industries, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission
353 U.S. 908·Supreme Court of the United States·1957
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. 750.
Moog Industries, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted limited to question 4 presented by the petition for the writ which reads as follows:
“4. Another question presented is that of the denial by the Court of Appeals of petitioner’s Motion to Hold Its Judgment and Order in Abeyance or to exercise its equitable powers and original jurisdiction, until its various numerous competitors who are using similar forms of volume discounts, which are standard in the industry, can be subjected to similar judgments and orders, since only two of its many competitors have been proceeded against similarly by the Federal Trade Commission; whether such denial by the Court of Appeals is inequitable, unjust and unfair when petitioner is subjected to the judgment and decree of the Court while its numerous competitors may still continue to offer volume discounts inevitably causing petitioner to suffer loss of business and consequent financial loss; and whether under such circumstances the Court should exercise its original equitable jurisdiction to protect the rights of petitioner.”
Malcolm I. Frank and James W. Cassedy for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney ° General Hansen, Charles H. Weston, Earl W. Kintner and Robert B. Dawkins for respondent.