Spencer Gifts, Inc., a Corporation of New Jersey, and Max Adler v. Federal Trade Commission

Third Circuit

Spencer Gifts, Inc., a Corporation of New Jersey, and Max Adler v. Federal Trade Commission

302 F.2d 267, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5184, 1962 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,313

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 1962

Docket13832_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 302 F.2d 267 (Spencer Gifts, Inc., a Corporation of New Jersey, and Max Adler v. Federal Trade Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spencer Gifts, Inc., a Corporation of New Jersey, and Max Adler v. Federal Trade Commission, 302 F.2d 267, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5184, 1962 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,313 (3d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

*268 PER CURIAM.

In this case the Federal Trade Commission has issued a cease and desist order with reference to certain deceptive advertising of the petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner had discontinued the conduct in question several months before the Commission’s inquiry began. The sole question now is whether the Commission was arbitrary in concluding that, the timing and circumstances of the abandonment of the illegal practice considered, there remained sufficient risk of its resumption to justify interdiction. We are satisfied that the Commission did not abuse its discretion, particularly since the petitioner insisted before the Commission that the practice in question had been legal.

The order of the Commission will be affirmed and enforced.

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

*268 PER CURIAM.

In this case the Federal Trade Commission has issued a cease and desist order with reference to certain deceptive advertising of the petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner had discontinued the conduct in question several months before the Commission’s inquiry began. The sole question now is whether the Commission was arbitrary in concluding that, the timing and circumstances of the abandonment of the illegal practice considered, there remained sufficient risk of its resumption to justify interdiction. We are satisfied that the Commission did not abuse its discretion, particularly since the petitioner insisted before the Commission that the practice in question had been legal.

The order of the Commission will be affirmed and enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 F.2d 267, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5184, 1962 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-gifts-inc-a-corporation-of-new-jersey-and-max-adler-v-federal-ca3-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack