United States v. Christie Industries, Inc., 17607
| Citation | 465 F.2d 1000 |
| Decision Date | 22 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | 17608.,No. 17607,17607 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. CHRISTIE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant in No. 17607 and Edwin C. Christie. UNITED STATES of America v. CHRISTIE INDUSTRIES, INC., and Edwin C. Christie. Appeal of Edwin C. CHRISTIE, Appellant in 17608. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Arthur J. O'Dea, Goodman, O'Dea & Breslin, Tenafly, N. J., for appellants.
Carolyn E. Arch, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J. (Herbert J. Stern, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS and MAX ROSENN, Circuit Judges, and KRAFT, District Judge.
On September 11, 1967,1 a preliminary injunction was entered by the District Court restraining Christie Industries, Inc. (Industries) and Edwin C. Christie (Christie) "and any of their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all above-entitled persons in active concert with any of them, during the pendency of the action, from preparing, packaging, promoting, selling, distributing, introducing, and causing to be introduced, and delivering and causing to be delivered for introduction into interstate commerce the aforesaid fireworks assembly-kits,2 individually, jointly, by, through or under the names of `Ecco,' `Ecco Products,' `Rocket Supply Co.,' or any other trade name or corporate entity." Jurisdiction of the trial court was based on the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1267(a).
On June 18 and June 19, 1968, a criminal trial to the Court, a jury having been waived, was had on the charge under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) that Industries or Christie, and various agencies controlled by it, had violated the provisions of the preliminary injunction by mailing to various minor persons fireworks and firework materials of the kind specified in the preliminary injunction. The Trial Court found Industries and Christie guilty of criminal contempt and fined each $2500.
On appeal, Industries and Christie insist that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a finding of violation of the terms of the preliminary injunction; indeed, the appellants' brief contains the bold assertion that "there is no proof that the named defendants committed any act or acts which would be violative of the subject Order." We agree.
We have carefully reviewed the record in the criminal contempt proceeding and we are compelled to conclude that there is no evidence to prove that "Ecco," "Ecco Products" or "Rocfuel Ltd." were owned, controlled, or connected with Christie or Industries on the dates when the government attempted to prove that the injunction was violated. The government's witnesses, which included several children who received fireworks kits through the mail, consistently denied ever having any dealings or familiarity with Christie or Industries. See transcript at 11, 39, 71, 152 and 167. These witnesses testified that they ordered and received their kits from entities called "Ecco," "Ecco Products," or "Rocfuel Ltd." Thus, the government has failed to prove an essential element of the criminal contempt, viz., that the defendants violated the injunction.3
The government argues, however, that we should take judicial notice of the civil proceeding in which Christie testified that "Ecco," "Ecco Products" and "Rocket Supply" were names under which he and Industries did business. The general rule in this circuit was enunciated in Funk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 163 F.2d 796, 800-801 (1947):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reno Air Racing Ass'n., Inc. v. McCord
...[the order's] entry.'" Common Cause v. Nuclear Reg. Comm'n, 674 F.2d 921, 927 (D.C.Cir.1982) (quoting United States v. Christie Indus., Inc., 465 F.2d 1000, 1002 (3d Cir.1971)). This case not only points out the pitfall of incorporating documents by reference in a TRO but also the hazard of......
-
Common Cause v. Nuclear Regulatory Com'n
...produced at the hearing on the injunction, and the mischief that the injunction seeks to prevent." United States v. Christie Industries, Inc., 465 F.2d 1000, 1007 (3d Cir. 1972). In the context of the litigation, an injunction's language might be sufficiently specific to notify the parties ......
-
Matthews v. State
...631 (1986); M/V American Queen v. San Diego Marine Const., 708 F.2d 1483, 1491 (9th Cir.1983); see also United States v. Christie Industries, Inc., 465 F.2d 1000, 1001-1002 (3d Cir.1971) (appellate court may not take judicial notice of testimony in related civil We do not mean to hold that ......
-
United States v. Christie Industries, Inc.
...of contempt and fined each of the defendants $2500. On appeal from that conviction this court reversed, United States v. Christie Industries, Inc., 465 F.2d 1000 (3 Cir., 1971). We "The government has failed to prove an essential element of the criminal contempt, viz., that the defendants v......
-
CHAPTER 8 TRIAL PRESENTATION AND EVIDENCE
...notice of its own court records showing dismissal of a class action as frivolous). [22] United States v. Christie Industries, Inc., 465 F.2d 1000 (3rd. Cir. 1971). [23] Ruhs v. Pacific Power & Light, 671 F.2d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir. 1982) (municipal ordinance); United States v. One 1975 Thund......