Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding Dr. Bruce Owen’s regression studies sufficient to show that CHD-related advertising had a material effect
• crediting Dr. E.A. Corley’s criticism of Ralston’s research monograph on anion gap theory
• rejecting both parties’ “unclean hands” defenses, a ruling that neither party appeals
• finding an injunction the most appropriate redress for ALPO’s false advertising
• “Ralston persists in its position that its thoroughly inadequate and distorted research permits it to continue to claim its dog food can ameliorate CHD.”
• “adjusted net profits” figure equals Ralston’s nationwide pre-tax profits, multiplied by ALPO’s percentage share of non-Ralston puppy food market

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).