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
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Vitasafe Corporation, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. - 352 F.2d 62
Argued September 21, 1965 Decided October 21, 1965
Arthur M. Handler, Asst. U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., and David E. Montgomery, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Milton A. Bass, New York City (Bass & Friend, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Before MOORE, SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Trade Commission issued, with the consent of defendant-appellant Vitasafe Corporation, a cease and desist order dealing with representations in advertising and with the prompt cancellation of withdrawn orders. Appellant filed a compliance report. Action was brought by the United States in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Section 5(l) of the F.T.C. Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(l), for $50,000 civil penalties, on ten counts, for violation of the consent order. The District Court, Edward Weinfeld, Judge, ruled defendant was guilty on nine counts, assessed penalties of $18,000 and issued an injunction commanding compliance with the consent order, Section 9 of the F.T.C. Act, 15 U.S.C. § 49. 234 F.Supp. 710, S.D.N.Y.1964. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
In a considered opinion, Judge Weinfeld rejected appellant's claims that the order was not final, that the violations were inadvertent, and that the mere terms of the compliance proposal submitted by it insulated it from sanctions for violation. For the reasons given in Judge Weinfeld's opinion, we likewise reject these contentions. The further argument that the acts of appellant were not covered by the Federal Trade Commission Act is without substance and is in any case raised too late for the first time on appeal.
The judgment is in all respects affirmed.