U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Vulcanized Rubber & Plastics Company v. Federal Trade Commission

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 29, 1958 · Edgsrton, Fahy, Burger

258 F.2d 684; 103 U.S. App. D.C. 384; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3045; 1958 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,050 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Donald E. Van Koughnet, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. H. Douglas Weaver, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. E. K. Elkins, Atty., Federal Trade Commission, with whom Mr. James E. Corkey, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, was on the brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Vulcanized Rubber & Plastics Company (3d Cir. 1961)
State of Alaska, Etc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, J. C. Penney Company, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (9th Cir. 1975)
Arizona v. Environmental Protection Agency (9th Cir. 1975)
Sydney N. Floersheim, an Individual Trading and Doing Business as Floersheim Sales Company and National Research Company v. Lewis A. Engman (D.C. Cir. 1973)
David Rettinger v. Federal Trade Commission (2d Cir. 1968)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks review of a Commission order to “cease and desist from representing * * * that [petitioner’s] combs are ‘rubber’ or ‘hard rubber’ or are made of ‘rubber’ or ‘hard rubber,’ unless such combs are in fact made of vulcanized hard rubber.” Over six months after the order had issued, the Commission undertook to construe its order, in a letter to petitioner, to prohibit representing the combs (which are 13% unvulcanized synthetic rubber and 85%' plastic) as “rubber-resin.” Petitioner contends that the order, as construed by the Commission, exceeds the bounds established by the complaint and findings, citing Gimbel Bros., Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, 2 Cir., 1941, 116 F. 2d 578. We do not understand the order as written to be challenged, but only the Commission’s subsequent interpretation of its order. However, this interpretation may be changed or it may never be enforced. We hold that there is no controversy calling for judicial review of the interpretation at the present time, See Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 1937, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617.

Dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.