Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Moog Industries, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission

• 1957 • 355 U.S. 411 • Warren Court
In the case of Moog Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1957), the Supreme Court was asked to review a decision made by the FTC that found Moog Industries guilty of price discrimination under Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act as amended by Robinson-Patman Act. The company had been selling automotive replacement parts at different prices to various customers without any cost justification for such differences, which led to substantial injury to competition according to FTC's findings....Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1957
Docket: 77
355 U.S. 411
78 S. Ct. 377
2 L. Ed. 2d 370
1958 U.S. LEXIS 1857
Argued: Jan 14, 1958

Moog Industries, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Moog Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1957), the Supreme Court was asked to review a decision made by the FTC that found Moog Industries guilty of price discrimination under Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act as amended by Robinson-Patman Act. The company had been selling automotive replacement parts at different prices to various customers without any cost justification for such differences, which led to substantial injury to competition according to FTC's findings. However, on appeal, Moog argued that there were no actual effects on competition and thus it did not violate anti-trust laws. The Supreme Court upheld FTC's ruling stating that proof of an actual detrimental effect on competition is not necessary in order for a violation under this act; rather it is sufficient if there exists a reasonable possibility or probability of harm occurring due to discriminatory pricing practices. Therefore, even though no direct evidence was presented showing specific harm caused by these practices in terms of reduced market shares or profits among competitors etc., potential damage inferred from circumstances surrounding such actions could be enough basis for legal action against them.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for MOOG Industries, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold FTC's order against Moog Industries was incorrect and overreached its authority. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't substantial evidence proving Moog had engaged in unfair methods of competition or deceptive acts as defined by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. They contended that while some of Moog’s practices might be considered aggressive business tactics, they did not necessarily constitute unlawful behavior warranting federal intervention. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications this ruling could have on future competitive business practices and warned against using antitrust laws too broadly to regulate normal market activities.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Jan 27, 1958
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms