Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Schick Incorporated and Schick Service, Inc., Petitioners, v. Federal Trade Commission, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 288 F.2d 407
Argued December 8, 1960 Decided February 9, 1961
On Petition to Review Orders of the Federal Trade Commission.
Mr. Richard H. Paul, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, New York City, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Miss Carolyn E. Agger, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioners.
Mr. Louis F. Oberdorfer, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioners.
Mr. Alan B. Hobbes, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, with whom Mr. Miles J. Brown, Atty., Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for respondent.
Messrs. Edward F. Howrey and William Simon, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Nash-Finch Co., as amicus curiae.
Mr. Joseph W. Burns, New York City, filed a brief on behalf of The Ruberoid Co., as amicus curiae.
Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Upon the authority of the decision today rendered in Sperry Rand Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm., ___ U.S.App.D.C. ___, 288 F.2d 403, the petition for review will be dismissed in view of our holding in that case that the enforcement and penalty provisions of Public Law 86-107, 15 U.S.C.A. § 21, do not apply to cease and desist orders which are outstanding as of the date of its enactment.
It is so ordered.