U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1962

Dell Publishing Company, Inc. v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 31, 1962 · Miller, Bazelon, Wright

303 F.2d 766; 113 U.S. App. D.C. 1; 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4958 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. William I. Denning, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Alan F. Wohlstetter and Ernest H. Land, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant, Mr. John R. Schmertz, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Nathan J. Paulson and Miss Sylvia A. Bacon, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. David A. Rezneck, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Standard Rate and Data Service, Inc. v. United States Postal Service (D.C. Cir. 1978)
Knight Newspapers, Inc. v. United States of America and Edward L. Baker, Individually and as Postmaster at Detroit, Michigan (6th Cir. 1968)
Robertson v. Cameron (District Court, District of Columbia 1963)
Holland v. Hannan (D.C. 1983)
National Rifle Ass'n of America v. US Postal Service (District Court, District of Columbia 1976)
Air Transport Ass'n of America v. Federal Energy Office (District Court, District of Columbia 1974)
Sierra Club v. United States Postal Service (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1973)
Fischer v. Kaylor (Ind. Ct. App. 1969)
National Bus Traffic Association v. United States (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1965)
Eastern Central Motor Carriers Ass'n v. United States (District Court, District of Columbia 1965)

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.

For the reasons stated by the District Judge, Dell Publishing Co. v. Summerfield, D.D.C., 198 F.Supp. 843, the Postmaster’s action in revoking appellant’s second-class mail permit was not “clearly wrong.” Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 109, 24 S.Ct. 595, 48 L.Ed. 894; United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 381-382, 81 S.Ct. 1554, 6 L.Ed.2d 908. See also, United States v. Drum, 368 U.S. 370, 376, 82 S.Ct. 408, 7 L.Ed.2d 360. Based on a reasonable interpretation of the controlling statute, his action was neither “arbitrary, capricious,” nor “an abuse of discretion.” Administrativi Procedure Act, § 10(e), 5 U.S.C. § 1003 (e). The judgment of the District Court, sustaining the Postmaster’s decision, is accordingly

Affirmed.

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