In Re Dolcin Corporation and Victor Van Der Linde, George Shimmerlik and Albert T. Wantz, Individually and as Officers of Dolcin Corporation

247 F.2d 524
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJuly 5, 1957
DocketMisc. 648
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 247 F.2d 524 (In Re Dolcin Corporation and Victor Van Der Linde, George Shimmerlik and Albert T. Wantz, Individually and as Officers of Dolcin Corporation) 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
In Re Dolcin Corporation and Victor Van Der Linde, George Shimmerlik and Albert T. Wantz, Individually and as Officers of Dolcin Corporation, 247 F.2d 524 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The facts essential to a decision in these contempt proceedings are not in dispute.1 The advertisements referred to in our Findings 2 entered this day violated the deeree of this Court of July 1, 1954. 94 U.S.App.D.C. 247, 219 F.2d 742. The question whether these violations constituted criminal contempt depends upon whether or not it was clear to respondents that they must comply with our said decree without awaiting further action by the Commission. We think the terms of our decree did make it clear that they were to do so, especially when read in the light of our opinion of July 1, 1954,3 and the opinion of Judges Edgerton, Prettyman, Bazelon, Fahy and Washington of February 3, 1955, in support of the order denying respondents’ petition for rehearing en banc4 In the latter opinion it is made explicit that respondents were to comply with our decree from and after its date, that is, that they were required, notwithstanding an interim between our decision and possible subsequent modification of its order by the Commission, to comply immediately with the terms of the order of the Commission, as modified, affirmed and enforced by our decree.5 If, how[526]*526ever, clarity in this regard might not have carried over to respondents prior .to May 17, 1955, any possible failure on .their part to understand the situation was removed by the letter of the corporation’s counsel to its president of that date, which stated in part:

«* * * [T]here is nothing to settle because the courts have settled the matter for us. Therefore, we are in no position to bargain.
“The F.T.C. order, as modified by the Court, speaks for itself. There is nothing further to be done now except comply with its provisions until such time when it is amended by the Commission. * * * ”

The charges of which we find the respondents guilty embrace conduct subsequent to this letter.

Statement of Proceedings

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on November 8, 1956, on an order to show cause why respondent Dolcin Corporation and respondents Victor van der Linde, George Shimmerlik and Albert T. Wantz, individually and as officers of Dolcin Corporation, should not be adjudged in criminal contempt. Before the Court, in addition to the aforesaid order to show cause, were (1) the petition of the Federal Trade Commission for prosecution of respondents for criminal 'contempt, (2) respondents’ return to the order to show cause, including a motion to dismiss and expunge as to respondents Shimmerlik and Wantz, (3) the brief in support of the petition filed by counsel appointed by the Court to prosecute the respondents for crim-/ inal contempt, (4) respondents’ brief in reply and in support-of motion to dismiss the petition and to discharge the order to show cause, and (5) the answer to respondents’ motion to dismiss filed by counsel appointed by the Court to prosecute the respondents for criminal contempt. The petition for prosecution and the order to show cause were served by the United States Marshal upon the' individual respondents personally, and upon respondent Dolcin Corporation by serving Victor van der Linde, vice-president of said corporation. The individual respondents each waived, in writing, his right to be present at any hearing in these proceedings. Respondents by their counsel, in open Court, waived trial by jury and declined to offer oral testimony. There was no request that the Court find the facts specially pursuant to Rule 23(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.

The parties submitted to the Court the matter of the criminal contempt on the foregoing pleadings, on the affidavits and exhibits attached thereto, and on oral argument of counsel.6

Finding of Guilt and Findings of Fact

The Court having considered the same now hereby finds beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the respondents is guilty of criminal contempt of this Court, in that each of them wilfully disseminated, or caused to be disseminated, in commerce,7 advertisements in the form of radio commercials which contained representations violative of the decree of this Court against respondents [petitioners there] in Dolcin Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, 94 U.S. App.D.C. 247, 219 F.2d 742, entered on July 1, 1954, and made effective April 8, 1955, with notice and knowledge that said representations violated the aforementioned decree, as set forth more fully in paragraphs XIV(1) (f) and XIV(2) of the petition of the Federal Trade Commission for prosecution of respondents for criminal contempt, filed June 14, 1956. Said commercials were broadcast by radio at the times and places indicated below:

[527]*527Radio Station Place of Broadcast Dates of Broadcast [1955]

Exhibit A — Dolcin Script No. 92-60

WDAS Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 16

Exhibit B — Dolcin Script No. 100-60

WFIL Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 12,13, 24, 26

October 8

Exhibit C — Dolcin Script No. 101-60

WTOP Washington, D. C. May 24, 25, 31

WMAL Washington, D. C. September 12, 15, 20, 22, 27, 30

October 5, 8,12,17

WWDC Silver Spring, Maryland September 12, 15, 19, 22, 26, 29

October 6,13,19

WFIL Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 14, 27

October 10

Exhibit D — Dolcin Script No. 102-60

WTOP Washington, D. C. May 25, 31

WMAL Washington, D. C. September 12, 15, 20, 23, 27, 30

October 5, 10,13,17

WWDC Silver Spring, Maryland September 12, 15, 19, 22, 26, 29

October 3, 6,10,13

WFIL Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 15, 28

October 13

Exhibit E — Dolcin Script No. 103-60

WFIL Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 16, 30

October 14

Exhibit F — Dolcin Script No. 104-60

WTOP Washington, D. C. May 25, 26

June 1

WMAL Washington, D. C. September 13, 16, 20, 23, 28

October 3, 6, 10, 13, 18

WWDC Silver Spring, Maryland September 13, 16, 20, 23, 27, 30

October 4, 7, 11, 14, 18

WFIL Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 17

October 4, 11

Exhibit G — Dolcin Script No. 105-60

WFIL Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 19

October 12

Exhibit H- — Dolcin Script No. 106-60

WTOP Washington, D. C. May 20, 27

June 1, 2

WMAL Washington, D. C. September 13,16, 21, 26, 29

October 3, 6,11,14,18

WWDC Silver Spring, Maryland September 13,17, 20, 24, 27

October 1, 4, 8,11,15

WFIL Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 20, 29

October 5, 15

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 F.2d 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dolcin-corporation-and-victor-van-der-linde-george-shimmerlik-and-cadc-1957.