Adams v. Federal Trade Commission case brief summary
296 F.2d 861 (1961)
CASE FACTS
This case involved cross appeals from an order entered by the district court in connection with proceedings pending before the Federal Trade Commission. Appellant, the Federal Trade Commission (Commission), issued complaints against respondents alleging that respondent dairy company and respondent grocery store maintained and effectuated a conspiracy, combination, agreement, and understanding in the sale and distribution of dairy products in restraint of trade. At issue in respondents' appeal was whether the district court was vested with jurisdiction to consider and adjudicate the sufficiency of the original complaints filed by appellant.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to test the sufficiency of appellant's complaint; however, the court reversed the district court's judgment regarding the enforcement of the subpoenas and ordered the district court to enforce all subpoenas.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
296 F.2d 861 (1961)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Respondents appealed the judgment of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to test the sufficiency of the
complaint and appellant sought review of the order denying
enforcement of a number of specifications of the subpoenas duces
tecum.CASE FACTS
This case involved cross appeals from an order entered by the district court in connection with proceedings pending before the Federal Trade Commission. Appellant, the Federal Trade Commission (Commission), issued complaints against respondents alleging that respondent dairy company and respondent grocery store maintained and effectuated a conspiracy, combination, agreement, and understanding in the sale and distribution of dairy products in restraint of trade. At issue in respondents' appeal was whether the district court was vested with jurisdiction to consider and adjudicate the sufficiency of the original complaints filed by appellant.
DISCUSSION
- The court held that the district court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction.
- With respect to appellant's appeal, the court held that it was appropriate to enforce all subpoenas issued by appellant.
OUTCOME
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to test the sufficiency of appellant's complaint; however, the court reversed the district court's judgment regarding the enforcement of the subpoenas and ordered the district court to enforce all subpoenas.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment