Legal Document

355 U.S. 411 78 Supreme Court Reporter 377 2 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 370 MOOG INDUSTRIES, Inc., Petitioner,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. FEDERAL COMMISSION, Petitioner, versus C. E. NIEHOFF & CO. Nos. 77 and 110. Argued Jan. 14, 1958. Decided 27, Rehearing Denied March 3 10, See 968, 531; 356 905, 559. Mr. Malcolm I. Frank, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner, Moog industries. Charles R. Sprowl, Chicago, Ill., respondent, Niehoff company Earl W. Kintner, Washington, D.C., Federal Trade Commission. PER CURIAM. 1 The general question presented by these two cases is whether it within the scope of reviewing authority a Appeals to postpone operation valid cease desist order Commission against single firm until similar orders have been entered that firm's competitors. In proceedings arising out alleged violations price discrimination provisions Clayton Act, § 2, 38 Statutes-at-Large 730, as amended Robinson-Patman 49 1526, 15 Code KF62 13, Annotated KF65 U5 Courts reached opposed results on this underlying issue. resolve conflict we granted certiorari, 353 908, 665, 662; 982, 1284, 1141. Number 77, petitioner (Moog Industries, Inc.) was found violated Act ordered from further violation. 51 F.T.C. 931. Petitioner sought review in Eighth Circuit. Upon affirmance order, 238 Reporter, 2nd 43, moved court hold entry judgment abeyance ground would suffer serious financial loss if prohibited engaging pricing practices open its denied requested relief. 110, respondent (C. Co.) had recommended hearing examiner, go business compelled sell at uniform while competitors were not under restraint. and, issuing respondent's request. 1114, 1153. On Seventh Circuit, Commission's determination statutory violation affirmed; however, (one judge dissenting) directed should take effect 'at such time future Circuit may direct, sua sponte or upon motion Commission.' 241 37, 43. 4 view administrative discretion Congress has given Commission, ordinarily courts modify ancillary features order. This but recognition fact shaping remedies framework regulatory legislation, an agency called exercise specialized, experienced judgment. Thus, decision one illegal into before others are similarly depends variety factors peculiarly expert understanding Only example, competent make initial what extent there relevant 'industry' which particular competes nature competition indicate identical treatment entire industry enforcement agency. Moreover, although allegedly practice appear be operative throughout industry, appearances reflect all firms dealt with proceeding receive individualized questions call discretionary It clearly special competence appraise adverse might result postponing prohibiting continued law. Furthermore, alone empowered develop policy best calculated achieve ends contemplated allocate available funds personnel way execute efficiently economically. 5 question, then, those us held respondents' proceeded decide. If raised situation any event entertain it. decided overturned absence patent abuse discretion. Accordingly, affirmed, 110 vacated cause remanded directions affirm entirety. 6 so ordered. 7 Judgment affirmed directions. 8 Justice WHITTAKER took no part consideration cases.

Classification Label: 8