Doris Savitch, an Individual Trading as Personal Drug Co., and Leo Savitch, Individually and as Manager of Said Company v. Federal Trade Commission

218 F.2d 817, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5331, 1955 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,950
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJanuary 26, 1955
Docket23102_1
StatusPublished

This text of 218 F.2d 817 (Doris Savitch, an Individual Trading as Personal Drug Co., and Leo Savitch, Individually and as Manager of Said Company v. Federal Trade Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doris Savitch, an Individual Trading as Personal Drug Co., and Leo Savitch, Individually and as Manager of Said Company v. Federal Trade Commission, 218 F.2d 817, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5331, 1955 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,950 (2d Cir. 1955).

Opinion

218 F.2d 817

Doris SAVITCH, an individual trading as Personal Drug Co.,
and Leo Savitch, individually and as manager of
said company, Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 125, Docket 23102.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Jan. 14, 1955.
Decided Jan. 26, 1955.

Robert M. Post, New York City (Walter L. Post, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners.

Jno. W. Carter, Jr., Atty., Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. (Earl W. Kintner, Gen. Counsel, and Robert B. Dawkins, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and FRANK and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Commission's conclusion, contrary to that of its Hearing Examiner, that petitioners had at least indirectly represented their product to be an abortifacient, was a reasonable interpretation of petitioners' advertisement, which we accept in the light of the Commission's special expertise and responsibility in the premises. There was sufficient evidence to support the finding that borderline anemia would not in itself cause delayed menstruation, and both the Commission and the Hearing Examiner agreed that petitioners' product would not be immediately effective to overcome other minor functional disorders. Consequently the Commission's order must be enforced.

Decision affirmed; enforcement granted.

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

Related

Savitch v. Federal Trade Commission
218 F.2d 817 (Second Circuit, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 F.2d 817, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5331, 1955 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doris-savitch-an-individual-trading-as-personal-dr-ca2-1955.