TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

U. S. Printing & Novelty Co., Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

U. S. PRINTING & NOVELTY CO., Inc. Et Al. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

U. S. Printing & Novelty Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 204 F.2d 737 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 4, 1953
Docket
No. 11602
Judges
Proctor, Fahy, Washington
Citations
204 F.2d 737

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Federal Trade Commission.

1

The facts are essentially similar to those in Hamilton Manufacturing Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 169 , 194 F.2d 346, 348 . The order of the Commission forbids petitioner, a manufacturing printer, to sell in interstate commerce “push cards, puncliboards, or other lottery devices which are to be used, or which, due to their design, are suitable for use in the sale or distribution of merchandise to the public by means of a game of chance, gift enterprise or lottery scheme.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioner urges that the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Halseth, 1952, 342 U.S.

277, 72 S.Ct. 275 , 96 L.Ed. 308 , establishes that the Federal Trade Commission has no authority over the sale of lottery devices. For the reasons given by the Ninth Circuit in Lichtenstein v. Federal Trade Commission, 1952, 194 F.2d 607, 611 , this contention must be rejected. Petitioner also attacks the form of the Commission’s order, alleging it to be inconsistent with our decision in Hamilton Manufacturing Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, supra. As to this, we agree with petitioner. The order of the Federal Trade Commission will he amended so as to insert, in replacement of the words italicized above, the words “ ‘which are designed or intended to be used’ ”. As thus modified, the order will be affirmed.

So ordered.

1

. The order was issued under authority of kicciion 5 of the Federal Trade Act, 38 Stat. 719 (1914), as amended, 15 U.S. C.A. § 45.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1955: 11957: 11971: 119552026peak 1955 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Halseth, 342 U.S. 277 (1952) 38
Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 194 F.2d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1952) 9
Lichtenstein v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 194 F.2d 607 (9th Cir. 1952) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list