St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States

365 U.S. 857, 81 S. Ct. 825, 5 L. Ed. 2d 822, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1455
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 27, 1961
Docket704
StatusPublished
Cited by60 cases

This text of 365 U.S. 857 (St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 857, 81 S. Ct. 825, 5 L. Ed. 2d 822, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1455 (1961).

Opinion

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to Questions 2, 3, 5, and 6 presented by the petition which read as follows:

“2. Does an order and judgment of the District Court under Section 6 (c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, modifying agency investigative process, carry with it liability for forfeitures for noncompliance with the original unmodified agency process?

“3. Did the orders of the Commission, purportedly issued pursuant to Section 6 (b) of the FTC Act, constitute a requirement that petitioner furnish ‘answers in writing to specific questions/ and not a requirement of a *858 ‘special report/ so that the provisions of the third unnumbered paragraph of Section 10 of the FTC Act, providing for forfeitures in the sum of $100 per day for each day of failure to file a ‘report/ have no application?

Horace R. Lamb for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Kirkpatrick and Richard A. Solomon for the United States.

“5. Are petitioner’s retained file copies of confidential reports to the Bureau of Census for the Census of Manufactures subject to the investigative processes of the Commission?

“6. Does the investigative power asserted by the Commission under Section 6 (b) of the FTC Act, if not reviewable except at the risk of paying forfeitures accumulated at the rate of $100 per day throughout the period of noncompliance, including the period of judicial review, deprive petitioner of its property without due process of law?”

Since time will not permit a hearing and determination of these issues until our next Term, petitioner’s motion pursuant to § 10 (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 243, 5U. S. C. (1958 ed.) § 1009 (d), is granted to the extent of tolling, as of the filing of its petition on February 7, 1961, and pending this Court’s disposition of the writ of certiorari, the further running and accumulation of forfeitures under § 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 723, 15 U. S. C. (1958 ed.) § 50. Petitioner’s liability for forfeitures accruing prior to February 7, 1961, is to abide the event of this litigation.

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

Related

Brewer v. Quarterman
474 F.3d 207 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
State v. Brouwer
550 S.E.2d 915 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2001)
Romero v. Brady
764 F. Supp. 227 (D. Puerto Rico, 1991)
St. John v. North Carolina Parole Commission
764 F. Supp. 403 (W.D. North Carolina, 1991)
Fordyce v. State
569 N.E.2d 357 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1991)
Washington v. District of Columbia
538 A.2d 1151 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1988)
State v. Johnson
722 P.2d 681 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1986)
United States v. Moore
15 M.J. 354 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1983)
Garcia v. Friesecke
597 F.2d 284 (First Circuit, 1979)
Ruiz Rodriguez v. Litton Industries Leasing Corp.
428 F. Supp. 1232 (D. Puerto Rico, 1977)
Emile A. Williams v. McAllister Brothers Inc.
534 F.2d 19 (Second Circuit, 1976)
Fennekohl v. United States
354 A.2d 238 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1976)
Jose Manuel Caceres v. San Juan Barge Company
520 F.2d 305 (First Circuit, 1975)
Caceres v. San Juan Barge Co.
387 F. Supp. 221 (D. Puerto Rico, 1974)
Pierce v. State
296 So. 2d 218 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
365 U.S. 857, 81 S. Ct. 825, 5 L. Ed. 2d 822, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-regis-paper-co-v-united-states-scotus-1961.