Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • 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.
Judges
  • Elijah Barrett Prettyman
  • David L. Bazelon
  • Charles Fahy
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • 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.
Judges
  • Elijah Barrett Prettyman
  • David L. Bazelon
  • Charles Fahy
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

SCHICK INCORPORATED and Schick Ser v. ce, Inc., Petitioners,

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

SCHICK INCORPORATED v. FEDERAL TRADE COMM
(Feb 9, 1961)