Gold Bond Stamp Company v. United States
| Decision Date | 14 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 17436.,17436. |
| Citation | 325 F.2d 1018 |
| Parties | GOLD BOND STAMP COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Daniel M. Singer, of Strasser, Spiegelberg, Fried, Frank & Kampelman, Washington, D. C., made argument for the appellant and filed brief with Harold P. Green, Max M. Kampelman, Alan L. Wurtzel, Washington, D. C., of Counsel Strasser, Spiegelberg, Fried, Frank & Kampelman, Washington, D. C., and also Levitt, Palmer & Bearmon, Minneapolis, Minn.
George R. Kucik, Attorney, Civil Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., made argument for the appellee and filed brief with William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Robert B. Hummel, Atty., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Before VOGEL, BLACKMUN and RIDGE, Circuit Judges.
This appeal involves consideration of the Antitrust Civil Process Act of 1962, 76 Stat. 548-552, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1311-1314. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice served a demand upon Gold Bond to produce, make available for inspection and copying or reproduction and to deliver to a named custodian certain documentary material and providing:
"This civil investigative demand is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Antitrust Civil Process Act, 76 Stat. 548-552, Title 15 United States Code Secs. 1311-1314, in the course of an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been a violation of the provisions of Title 15 United States Code Secs. 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 and 18 by conduct of the following nature: Restrictive practices and acquisitions involving the dispensing, supplying, sale or furnishing of trading stamps and the purchase and sale of goods and services in connection therewith."
Following the procedure outlined in 76 Stat. 551, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1314, Gold Bond applied to the District Court for an order modifying or setting aside the demand. From a denial thereof Gold Bond appealed to this court. In his opinion denying relief, Judge Nordbye carefully examined the purpose of the Antitrust Civil Process Act, its legislative history and its provisions. His excellent and comprehensive analysis of the Act and his determination that the demand to produce herein complied with its requirements fully answer appellant's contentions. It is published in Petition of Gold Bond Stamp...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schueler v. Rayjas Enterprises, Inc.
...of burdensomeness and harassment re CID rejected); Petition of Gold Bond Stamp Co., 221 F.Supp. 391 (D.Minn.1963) aff'd. 325 F.2d 1018 (8th Cir. 1964) (claims of privilege and burden evaluated); and Petition of Emprise Corp., 344 F.Supp. 319 (W.D.N.Y.1972) (challenge to relevance of informa......
-
BRIXEN & CHRISTOPHER ARCH. v. State
...action. ¶ 19 In Petition of Gold Bond Stamp Co., 221 F.Supp. 391, 396 (D.Minn.1963), aff'd per curiam, Gold Bond Stamp Co. v. United States, 325 F.2d 1018 (8th Cir.1964), the court evaluated the strictness with which to construe a statutory requirement that a certain statement must be conta......
-
U.S. v. Markwood
...Act, Congress cited with approval an Eighth Circuit case, Petition of Gold Bond Stamp Co., 221 F.Supp. 391 (D. Minn.1963), aff'd, 325 F.2d 1018 (8th Cir.1964), wherein that Court analogized an antitrust CID to the administrative subpoenas issued by the Secretary of Labor and the Federal Tra......
-
Wilson Corp. v. State ex rel. Udall
...Co., 221 F.Supp. 391 (D.Minn.1963) (power of United States Attorney General to obtain CIDs for antitrust investigation), aff'd, 325 F.2d 1018 (8th Cir.1964). 5. In any event, the language of the statute is clear. The pertinent portion of Section 57-1-5(A) If the attorney general has reasona......
-
The enforcement of investigative subpoenas issued by administrative agencies: an analysis of common defenses.
...though "[t]he Attorney General cannot assure anyone at this posture of the proceeding that there has been any violation of law"), aff'd, 325 F.2d 1018 (8th Cir. 1964); Bankers, 694 So. 2d at 74 ("Although the Department has not alleged any such violation--and may never--we believe the Depar......