Dell Publishing Company, Inc. v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General

D.C. Circuit

Dell Publishing Company, Inc. v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General

303 F.2d 766, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4958

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 1962

Docket16885

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 303 F.2d 766 (Dell Publishing Company, Inc. v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dell Publishing Company, Inc. v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General, 303 F.2d 766, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4958 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated by the District Judge, Dell Publishing Co. v. Summerfield, D.D.C., 198 F.Supp. 843, the Postmaster’s action in revoking appellant’s second-class mail permit was not “clearly wrong.” Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 109, 24 S.Ct. 595, 48 L.Ed. 894; United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 381-382, 81 S.Ct. 1554, 6 L.Ed.2d 908. See also, United States v. Drum, 368 U.S. 370, 376, 82 S.Ct. 408, 7 L.Ed.2d 360. Based on a reasonable interpretation of the controlling statute, his action was neither “arbitrary, capricious,” nor “an abuse of discretion.” Administrativi Procedure Act, § 10(e), 5 U.S.C. § 1003 (e). The judgment of the District Court, sustaining the Postmaster’s decision, is accordingly

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated by the District Judge, Dell Publishing Co. v. Summerfield, D.D.C., 198 F.Supp. 843, the Postmaster’s action in revoking appellant’s second-class mail permit was not “clearly wrong.” Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 109, 24 S.Ct. 595, 48 L.Ed. 894; United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 381-382, 81 S.Ct. 1554, 6 L.Ed.2d 908. See also, United States v. Drum, 368 U.S. 370, 376, 82 S.Ct. 408, 7 L.Ed.2d 360. Based on a reasonable interpretation of the controlling statute, his action was neither “arbitrary, capricious,” nor “an abuse of discretion.” Administrativi Procedure Act, § 10(e), 5 U.S.C. § 1003 (e). The judgment of the District Court, sustaining the Postmaster’s decision, is accordingly

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 F.2d 766, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dell-publishing-company-inc-v-j-edward-day-postmaster-general-cadc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack