TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Vitasafe Corporation

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VITASAFE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Vitasafe Corp., 352 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1965)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 21, 1965
Docket
No. 29312_1
Judges
Moore, Smith, Anderson
Citations
352 F.2d 621965 U.S. App. LEXIS 42351966 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,669

Opinion — Per Curiam

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Corporation, a cease and desist order dealing with representations in advertising and with the prompt cancellation of withdrawn orders.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(1)

of the F.T.C. Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (0, 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 *63 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.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1967: 21971: 11972: 31973: 21974: 11975: 11977: 11979: 11984: 21985: 12025: 119672026peak 1972 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. JB Williams Company, Inc.354 F. Supp. 521 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)
  2. United States v. Beatrice Foods Co.493 F.2d 1259 (8th Cir. 1974)
  3. United States v. ACB Sales & Service, Inc.590 F. Supp. 561 (D. Ariz. 1984)
  4. United States v. Beatrice Foods Co.344 F. Supp. 104 (D. Minnesota 1972)
  5. United States v. Ancorp National Services, Inc.367 F. Supp. 1221 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)
  6. United States v. Beatrice Foods Co.52 F.R.D. 14 (D. Minnesota 1971)

Most recent

  1. Federal Trade Commission v. Seven & I Holdings, Co., Ltd.No. 2023-3600 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2025)
  2. ACEMLA v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal763 F.2d 101 (2d Cir. 1985)
  3. Schmidt v. Polish People's Republic742 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1984)
  4. United States v. ACB Sales & Service, Inc.590 F. Supp. 561 (D. Ariz. 1984)
  5. United States v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc.464 F. Supp. 1037 (D. Del. 1979)
  6. In re Fabric Tree426 F. Supp. 872 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Vitasafe Corp., 234 F. Supp. 710 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) 9

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