James v. Federal Trade Commission, 12106.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 12106.,12106. |
| Citation | 253 F.2d 78 |
| Parties | R. B. JAMES and Patrick Zurla, Individuals and Co-partners, Trading as Chicago Board Company, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Marvin H. Ruttenberg, Chicago, Ill., Frank W. James, Glenview, Ill., for petitioner.
Earl W. Kintner, Gen. Counsel, John W. Carter, Jr., Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C. (James E. Corkey, Asst. Gen. Counsel, E. K. Elkins, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for Federal Trade Commission.
Before MAJOR, FINNEGAN and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.
Section 5(a) (1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act in relevant part1 provides: "Unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, are hereby declared unlawful." The co-partner petitioners have brought here for review a cease and desist order2 issued against them by the Commission acting under § 5(a) (1) based upon undisputed facts showing the following. For two years these petitioners engaged in the sale and distribution in commerce, within the statutory meaning of that word, of pushcards and punchboards, for use by retail dealers when selling merchandise to the public. These pushcards and punchboards are designed and arranged for use in games of chance, gift enterprises or lottery schemes by retailers when selling and distributing merchandise to the buying public. Petitioners' sales in 1954 and 1955 amounted to roughly $500,000 annually, and their pushcards and punchboards are transported from their Illinois place of business to purchasers in various parts of the United States and the District of Columbia. Other significant factual aspects of this situation are adequately summarized in the Commission's opinion:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. State of Wis.
...Descriptions of these games may be found in Wolf v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 135 F.2d 564 (7th Cir.1943) (pull-tabs); James v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 253 F.2d 78 (7th Cir.1958) (punch boards); Ore. Att'y Gen. OP-6300, n. 2 (September 26, 1990) (punch boards and tip-jars); Md. Att'y Gen. Opinion......
-
Marco Sales Company v. FTC
...804, 5 L.Ed.2d 809 (1961); Goldberg v. FTC, 283 F.2d 299 (7th Cir. 1960); Surf Sales Co. v. FTC, 259 F.2d 744 (7th Cir. 1958); James v. FTC, 253 F.2d 78 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 821, 79 S.Ct. 34, 3 L.Ed.2d 62 (1958); Drath v. FTC, 99 U.S.App. D.C. 289, 239 F.2d 452 (1956), cert. d......
-
Surf Sales Company v. Federal Trade Commission
...199 F.2d 417; Zitserman v. F.T.C., 8 Cir., 1952, 200 F. 2d 519; Gay Games, Inc., v. F.T.C., 10 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 197; James v. F.T. C., 7 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 78. The petitioners have offered no good reason, and we certainly know of none, why we should hold to the contrary The only other......
-
Gellman v. FTC
...Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 194 F.2d 346, 348 ("intended to be used"); James v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 78, rehearing denied March 31, 1958, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 821, 79 S.Ct. 34, 3 L. Ed.2d 62, rehearing denied 358 U.S. 89......