Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,300+ case briefs...

Federal Trade Commission v. Universal-Rundle Corp.

United States Supreme Court
387 U.S. 244 (1967)


Universal-Rundle Corp. (Universal-Rundle) sells a line of china and cast-iron plumbing fixtures. In 1960, the FTC issued a complaint against Universal-Rundle, alleging that it had sold items at higher prices to some customers than it had charged others. The effect of the distinction was to lessen competition. After hearings, the FTC ordered Universal-Rundle to cease and desist from its practices. Shortly after the issuance of the order, Universal-Rundle petitioned the FTC to stay the order to investigate and institute appropriate proceedings to correct industry-wide practices by plumbing fixture manufacturers. In support, Universal-Rundle submitted affidavits and evidence showing that its principal competition offered similar discounts, that Universal-Rundle was one of the smaller players in the industry, and that its competitors had had profits in the last five years whereas Universal-Rundle had suffered losses. It submitted an affidavit from its marketing vice president alleging that Universal-Rundle would suffer severe financial difficulties if it were the only competitor to be restrained from offering truckload discounts. In a unanimous decision denying the petition for stay, the FTC held that a general allegation that competitors were offering similar discounts was not a sufficient basis for instituting industry-wide proceedings or withholding enforcement of the case and desist. Universal-Rundle sought review of the FTC order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit set aside the order denying the stay and remanded the case with instructions to the FTC to conduct an industry investigation. The Seventh Circuit conceded in light of Moog Industries, Inc. v. FTC, 355 U.S. 411 (1958), a court should not interfere with an FTC order absent a patent abuse of discretion, but it concluded that there was a patent abuse of discretion here. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Warren, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 370,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,300 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial