Case Citator › Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States

Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
225 U.S. 282
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
3 of 3
Citing cases (total)
3
Treatment dates
1939
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States was overruled in part. All 3 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States rejected its rule that a negative agency order could not be reviewed, while retaining the separate requirements of administrative finality and primary jurisdiction. The Constitution Annotated lists Procter & Gamble as overruled by Rochester Telephone; the confirmed treatment of its negative order rule is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

3 later cases cite Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States; 3 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Procter & Gamble's distinction between negative and affirmative agency orders as a jurisdictional test for review.

    Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    This type of situation is illustrated by Procter & Gamble Co. v. United. States, 225 U. S. 282. Since this case gave rise to the notion that there is a specialized jurisdictional doctrine pertaining to "negative orders,” it calls for re-examination. ... We conclude, therefore, that any distinction, as such, between “negative” and “affirmative” orders, as a touchstone of jurisdiction to review the Commission’s orders, serves no useful purpose, and insofar as earlier decisions have been controlled by this distinction, they can nc> longer be guiding.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace