Mass Retailing Institute, Inc. v. Cost of Living Council

Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals

Mass Retailing Institute, Inc. v. Cost of Living Council

468 F.2d 948, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8445

CourtTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 13, 1972

DocketNo. DC-2

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 468 F.2d 948 (Mass Retailing Institute, Inc. v. Cost of Living Council) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mass Retailing Institute, Inc. v. Cost of Living Council, 468 F.2d 948, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8445 (tecoa 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the issues briefed by the parties we hereby grant the appellees’ motion to affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Although the Cost of Living Council’s failure to give specific reasons for its grant of an exemption from price controls for postal rate increases, 6 C.F. R. § 101.34(a), makes the task of judicial review more difficult, there is enough before us to demonstrate that the exemption was consistent with the standards designed to prevent “gross inequities” and “hardships” set forth in § 203(b)(2) of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as amended, Pub.L. No. 92-210 (1971). In the future, however, the Cost of Living Council should make explicit the bases of its judgment that an exemption granted comes within the specific criteria established by the Act.

Because of the creation of a valid exemption in this case, the appellants’ point regarding the failure by either the Cost of Living Council or the Price Commission to hold a hearing under § 207(c) of the Act before an increase in rates was approved has become moot.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the issues briefed by the parties we hereby grant the appellees’ motion to affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Although the Cost of Living Council’s failure to give specific reasons for its grant of an exemption from price controls for postal rate increases, 6 C.F. R. § 101.34(a), makes the task of judicial review more difficult, there is enough before us to demonstrate that the exemption was consistent with the standards designed to prevent “gross inequities” and “hardships” set forth in § 203(b)(2) of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as amended, Pub.L. No. 92-210 (1971). In the future, however, the Cost of Living Council should make explicit the bases of its judgment that an exemption granted comes within the specific criteria established by the Act.

Because of the creation of a valid exemption in this case, the appellants’ point regarding the failure by either the Cost of Living Council or the Price Commission to hold a hearing under § 207(c) of the Act before an increase in rates was approved has become moot.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 F.2d 948, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mass-retailing-institute-inc-v-cost-of-living-council-tecoa-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack