TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Samuel H. Moss, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

SAMUEL H. MOSS, Inc., v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Samuel H. Moss, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 155 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1946)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Subsequent history: aff'd sub nom. Walling v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry., 330 U.S. 158 (1947). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 3, 1946
Docket
No. 136
Judges
L. Hand, Augustus N. Hand, and Clark, Circuit Judges
Citations
155 F.2d 10161946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3800

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner has moved us to modify our order entered on April 17, 1945; but, as there is no change which we think it either necessary or desirable to make, the motion will be denied, quite aside from the question of our power to change the order at this time. However, some uncertainty has arisen as to the meaning of some of the language in the opinion, which it is desirable to clarify. The following passages will be deemed amended as set forth below. The second sentence of the first full paragraph of the left column of page 380 of 148 F.2d will read as follows: “We agree that he must prove that he did not mean to undercut his competitors’ price; but when he has in fact undercut that price, we reserve the question whether it is necessary as part of that proof, for him to show that he did not know what that price was.” The fourth sentence of the same paragraph will read as follows: “That is to say, we need not now decide more than the offer shall be made without actual intent to undercut his competitors’ price.” The sixth sentence of the last paragraph of the left column on page 380 will read as follows: “Once the petitioner was shown to have charged different prices and failed to prove that this did not ‘lessen competition,’ it could not escape without showing that the offers which it made were either in fact no lower than that of its competitors, or that it did not mean them to be.”

The motion is denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1960: 11963: 119602026peak 1960 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list