Federal Trade Commission v. The Cement Institute
Headline: FTC petitions for rehearing in multiple cement-industry cases are denied, preventing the Court from reexamining those cases and keeping prior rulings from immediate reconsideration for the cement companies involved.
Holding:
- Prevents Supreme Court rehearing; cases will not be reargued.
- Leaves the existing legal outcomes in place for the parties.
- Noted that two Justices did not participate in these decisions.
Summary
Background
The Federal Trade Commission brought legal actions against numerous cement companies and industry groups. The record lists multiple separate cases naming cement manufacturers and trade groups and shows private lawyers and government counsel representing the parties. An amicus curiae filing by General Electric Company is noted. The entry shown is dated June 7, 1948.
Reasoning
The narrow question before the Court in this entry was whether to grant the petitioners another review of matters already decided. The Court’s order, as published in the excerpt, simply states: "The petitions for rehearing in these cases are denied." The excerpt does not provide the Court’s detailed reasons or any full opinion explaining the denial. Two Justices, Douglas and Jackson, are recorded as not having taken part in consideration or decision.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court denied rehearing, the Court will not reexamine these particular disputes at this time, and the prior Supreme Court action or lower-court resolution stands without further review by this Court. That means the Federal Trade Commission and the named cement companies must proceed based on the existing status of the cases. The order is dated and final as of June 7, 1948, closing the Supreme Court door to additional argument in these dockets for now.
Dissents or concurrances
No dissenting or concurring opinions are included in the excerpt; only two Justices are recorded as not participating.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?