TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Walter Dlutz v. Federal Trade Commission

Walter DLUTZ, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Dlutz v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 406 F.2d 227 (3d Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 2, 1969
Docket
No. 17262_1
Judges
Hastie, Kalodner, Per Curiam, Van Dusen
Citations
406 F.2d 227

Opinion — Per Curiam

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM:

The Federal Trade Commission issued an Order to cease and desist from deceptive business practices against the General Transmission Corporation of Washington, Walter Dlutz, individually and as an officer of the corporation, and William J. Green, Jr., individually and as an agent of the corporation. The cease and desist order was issued at the close of an administrative proceeding charging the corporation, Dlutz and Green, with engaging in false and deceptive practices in the conduct of the corporation’s business of advertising, repair and sale of automotive transmissions in the District of Columbia, in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

1

Dlutz is sole stockholder of the corporation and its president, treasurer and one of three directors.

The corporation and Green have not challenged the Commission’s cease and desist order. Dlutz filed this pro se petition for review. He contends that the record does not support the Commission’s findings that he directed and controlled the corporation’s operations and that he had full knowledge of their unlawful nature, and urges that, for that reason, the cease and desist order should not extend to him in his individual capacity.

On review of the record we are of the opinion that the evidence supports the Commission’s fact findings, and accordingly they are conclusive. General Foods Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, 386 F.2d 936, 940 (3 Cir. 1967); Pati-Port, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 313 F.2d 103, 104 (4 Cir. 1963).

As to Dlutz’ contention that the Commission’s order is too sweeping, we need only say we can see no basis for so holding in view of the prevailing circumstances. The order is certainly a per *228 missible one. A similar order was affirmed in Pati-Port.

For the reasons stated the Commission’s order will be affirmed and enforced.

1

. 66 Stat. 632 , 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (a).

How later courts describe this case

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

1977: 11980: 119772026peak 1977 · 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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Gen. Foods Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 386 F.2d 936 (3d Cir. 1967) 27
Pati-Port, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 313 F.2d 103 (4th Cir. 1963) 7

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