Lee Boyer's Candy v. Federal Trade Commission

128 F.2d 261, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3560
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 25, 1942
DocketNo. 9938
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 F.2d 261 (Lee Boyer's Candy v. Federal Trade Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lee Boyer's Candy v. Federal Trade Commission, 128 F.2d 261, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3560 (9th Cir. 1942).

Opinion

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition to review an order of the Federal Trade Commission. Petition[262]*262er’s brief specifies as error,1 not the entire order, but only so much thereof as requires petitioner to cease and desist from: “(1) Selling' or distributing any merchandise so packed and assembled that sales of said merchandise to the public are to be made or may be made by means of a game of chance, gift enterprise or lottery scheme.”

Other paragraphs of the order — paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) — are not here challenged. As to paragraph (1), petitioner’s only objection is to the phrase “or may be made.” This phrase, petitioner contends, makes the order too broad. Supporting petitioner’s contention are: Helen Ardelle, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, 9 Cir., 101 F.2d 718; Federal Trade Commission v. A. McLean & Son, 7 Cir., 84 F.2d 910; Federal Trade Commission v. Charles N. Miller Co., 1 Cir., 97 F.2d 563; Sweets Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 2 Cir., 109 F.2d 296. Opposed are: National Candy Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 104 F.2d 999 ;2 Ostler Candy Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 10 Cir., 106 F.2d 962; Hill v. Federal Trade Commission, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 104; Kritzik v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 125 F.2d 351.

We are asked by the Commission to overrule our decision in Helen Ardelle, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, supra. This we decline to do; for, although some courts have refused to follow it,3 we still believe our decision was correct.

The order is modified by striking from paragraph (1) thereof the phrase “or may be made.” As thus modified, the order is affirmed.

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

Related

Lichtenstein v. Federal Trade Commission
194 F.2d 607 (Ninth Circuit, 1952)
People v. Díaz Moure
71 P.R. 472 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 F.2d 261, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-boyers-candy-v-federal-trade-commission-ca9-1942.