United States v. Vitasafe Corporation

352 F.2d 62, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4235, 1966 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,669
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedOctober 21, 1965
Docket29312_1
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 352 F.2d 62 (United States v. Vitasafe Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Vitasafe Corporation, 352 F.2d 62, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4235, 1966 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,669 (2d Cir. 1965).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Federal Trade Commission issued, with the consent of defendant-appellant Vitasafe Corporation, a cease and desist order dealing with representations in advertising and with the prompt cancellation of withdrawn orders. Appellant filed a compliance report. Action was brought by the United States in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Section 5(1) of the F.T.C. Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(0, for $50,000 civil penalties, on ten counts, for violation of the consent order. The District Court, Edward Weinfeld, Judge, ruled defendant was guilty on nine counts, assessed penalties of $18,000 and issued an injunction commanding compliance with the consent order, Section 9 of the F.T.C. Act, 15 U.S.C. § 49. 234 F.Supp. 710, S.D.N.Y.1964. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

In a considered opinion, Judge Weinfeld rejected appellant’s claims that the order was not final, that the violations were inadvertent, and that the mere terms of the compliance proposal submitted by it insulated it from sanctions for violation. For the reasons given in *63 Judge Weinfeld’s opinion, we likewise reject these contentions. The further argument that the acts of appellant were not covered by the Federal Trade Commission Act is without substance and is in any case raised too late for the first time on appeal.

The judgment is in all respects affirmed.

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

Related

ACEMLA v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal
763 F.2d 101 (Second Circuit, 1985)
Schmidt v. Polish People's Republic
742 F.2d 67 (Second Circuit, 1984)
United States v. ACB Sales & Service, Inc.
590 F. Supp. 561 (D. Arizona, 1984)
United States v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc.
464 F. Supp. 1037 (D. Delaware, 1979)
Matter of Fabric Tree
426 F. Supp. 872 (S.D. New York, 1977)
United States v. PAPERCRAFT CORPORATION
393 F. Supp. 408 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1975)
United States v. Beatrice Foods Co.
493 F.2d 1259 (Eighth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Ancorp National Services, Inc.
367 F. Supp. 1221 (S.D. New York, 1973)
United States v. JB Williams Company, Inc.
354 F. Supp. 521 (S.D. New York, 1973)
United States v. Itt Continental Baking Company
462 F.2d 1104 (Tenth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Bostic
336 F. Supp. 1312 (D. South Carolina, 1972)
United States v. Beatrice Foods Co.
52 F.R.D. 14 (D. Minnesota, 1971)
Federal Trade Commission v. Jantzen, Inc.
383 F.2d 981 (Ninth Circuit, 1967)
United States v. Herbold Laboratory, Inc.
267 F. Supp. 53 (C.D. California, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
352 F.2d 62, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4235, 1966 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-vitasafe-corporation-ca2-1965.