Gold Bond Stamp Company v. United States

325 F.2d 1018
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 14, 1964
Docket17436_1
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 325 F.2d 1018 (Gold Bond Stamp Company v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gold Bond Stamp Company v. United States, 325 F.2d 1018 (8th Cir. 1964).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves consideration of the Antitrust Civil Process Act of 1962, 76 Stat. 548-552, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1311-1314. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice served a demand upon Gold Bond to produce, make available for inspection and copying or reproduction and to deliver to a named custodian certain documentary material and providing:

“This civil investigative demand is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Antitrust Civil Process Act, 76 Stat. 548-552, Title 15 United States Code Secs. 1311-1314, in the course of an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been a violation of the provisions of Title 15 United States Code Secs. 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 and 18 by conduct of the following nature: Restrictive practices and acquisitions involving the dispensing, supplying, sale or furnishing of trading stamps and the purchase and sale of goods and services in connection therewith.”

Following the procedure outlined in 76 Stat. 551, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1314, Gold Bond applied to the District Court for an order modifying or setting aside the demand. From a denial thereof Gold Bond appealed to this court. In his opinion denying relief, Judge Nordbye carefully examined the purpose of the Antitrust Civil Process Act, its legislative history and its provisions. His excellent and comprehensive analysis of the Act and his determination that the demand to produce herein complied with its requirements fully answer appellant’s contentions. It is published in Petition of Gold Bond Stamp Company, D.C.Minn., 1963, 221 F. Supp. 391. We are in complete accord with what Judge Nordbye says with reference to the Act in question and the *1019 nature of the instant demand served in connection with the provisions thereof. Accordingly, on the basis of his opinion, this case is affirmed.

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

Related

Brixen & Christopher Architects, P.C. v. State
2001 UT App 210 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 2001)
Wilson Corp. v. State Ex Rel. Udall
916 P.2d 1344 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1996)
MacCaferri Gabions, Inc. v. United States
938 F. Supp. 311 (D. Maryland, 1995)
United States v. Ronald P. Markwood
48 F.3d 969 (Sixth Circuit, 1995)
Schueler v. Rayjas Enterprises, Inc.
847 F. Supp. 1147 (S.D. New York, 1994)
State Ex Rel. Palumbo v. Graley's Body Shop, Inc.
425 S.E.2d 177 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1992)
Benson v. People
703 P.2d 1274 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1985)
Attorney General of Texas v. Allstate Insurance Co.
687 S.W.2d 803 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
In Re Petition of Ezell
446 So. 2d 253 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1982
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1982
Finnell v. United States Department of Justice
535 F. Supp. 410 (D. Kansas, 1982)
State Ex Rel. Shriver v. Leech
612 S.W.2d 454 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1981)
Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State
620 P.2d 182 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1980)
Lewandowski v. Danforth
547 S.W.2d 470 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1977)
Ajello v. Hartford Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
347 A.2d 113 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1975)
Steele v. State
537 P.2d 782 (Washington Supreme Court, 1975)
Mobil Oil Corporation v. Killian
301 A.2d 562 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1973)
In re Emprise Corp.
344 F. Supp. 319 (W.D. New York, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
325 F.2d 1018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gold-bond-stamp-company-v-united-states-ca8-1964.