Moog Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission case brief
summary
355 U.S. 411 (1958)
CASE FACTS
The issue raised by the two cases on review was whether it was within the scope of the reviewing authority of a court of appeals to postpone the operation of a cease-and-desist order of the FTC against a single firm until similar orders had been entered against that firm's competitors.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The Supreme Court determined that because the question of whether the orders should be held in abeyance had not been raised before the FTC, the judgment in the first case was affirmed. Because the FTC had decided the question in the other case, that judgment was vacated and that cause was remanded with directions to affirm the order of the FTC in its entirety.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
355 U.S. 411 (1958)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner company appealed the
judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit and petitioner Federal Trade Commission (FTC) appealed the
judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit. Certiorari was granted to resolve the issue of whether it
was within the scope of review for the courts of appeals to postpone
the operation of an FTC cease-and-desist order.CASE FACTS
The issue raised by the two cases on review was whether it was within the scope of the reviewing authority of a court of appeals to postpone the operation of a cease-and-desist order of the FTC against a single firm until similar orders had been entered against that firm's competitors.
DISCUSSION
- The Supreme Court determined that if the question had not been raised before the FTC, a reviewing court should not entertain it.
- If the FTC had decided the question, its discretionary determination should not be overturned in the absence of a patent abuse of discretion.
- The Court noted that in light of the scope of administrative discretion that Congress had given the FTC, it was ordinarily not for courts to modify ancillary features of a valid FTC order.
- The court reasoned that the FTC, in shaping remedies within the framework of regulatory legislation, exercised its specialized, experienced judgment, which was entitled to due deference by the courts.
OUTCOME
The Supreme Court determined that because the question of whether the orders should be held in abeyance had not been raised before the FTC, the judgment in the first case was affirmed. Because the FTC had decided the question in the other case, that judgment was vacated and that cause was remanded with directions to affirm the order of the FTC in its entirety.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment