St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States
Cases that cite this one
54 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Brewer v. Quarterman (5th Cir. 2006)
- United States v. Herman L. Womack, United States of America v. Potomac News Company (D.C. Cir. 1975)
- Willie McCurry v. Marvin Allen and Steven Jacobsmeyer (8th Cir. 1982)
- State v. Brouwer (S.C. Ct. App. 2001)
- State v. Johnson (N.M. Ct. App. 1986)
- Pierce v. State (Ala. 1974)
- Vernon Walker Huffman v. United States, Dennis Eugene Pryba v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Edward A. Wild, Jr. And Louis Corrado (2d Cir. 1970)
- In re Giannini (Cal. 1968)
- United States v. West Coast News Company, Inc., a California Corporation, Wallace De-Ortega Maxey, and Sanford E. Aday (6th Cir. 1966)
- In re Colton (2d Cir. 1961)
- Fordyce v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)
- Romero v. Brady (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1991)
- St. John v. North Carolina Parole Commission (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 1991)
- Washington v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1988)
- United States v. Moore (United States Court of Military Appeals 1983)
- Getty Refining & Marketing Co. v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1982)
- Garcia v. Friesecke (1st Cir. 1979)
- Ruiz Rodriguez v. Litton Industries Leasing Corp. (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1977)
- Emile A. Williams v. McAllister Brothers Inc. (2d Cir. 1976)
- Fennekohl v. United States (D.C. 1976)
- Jose Manuel Caceres v. San Juan Barge Company (1st Cir. 1975)
- Emilio Salas Mojica v. Puerto Rico Lighterage Company, Inc. (1st Cir. 1974)
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
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to Questions 2, 3, 5, and 6 presented by the petition which read as follows:
“2. Does an order and judgment of the District Court under Section 6 (c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, modifying agency investigative process, carry with it liability for forfeitures for noncompliance with the original unmodified agency process?
“3. Did the orders of the Commission, purportedly issued pursuant to Section 6 (b) of the FTC Act, constitute a requirement that petitioner furnish ‘answers in writing to specific questions/ and not a requirement of a *858 ‘special report/ so that the provisions of the third unnumbered paragraph of Section 10 of the FTC Act, providing for forfeitures in the sum of $100 per day for each day of failure to file a ‘report/ have no application?
“5. Are petitioner’s retained file copies of confidential reports to the Bureau of Census for the Census of Manufactures subject to the investigative processes of the Commission?
“6. Does the investigative power asserted by the Commission under Section 6 (b) of the FTC Act, if not reviewable except at the risk of paying forfeitures accumulated at the rate of $100 per day throughout the period of noncompliance, including the period of judicial review, deprive petitioner of its property without due process of law?”
Since time will not permit a hearing and determination of these issues until our next Term, petitioner’s motion pursuant to § 10 (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 243, 5U. S. C. (1958 ed.) § 1009 (d), is granted to the extent of tolling, as of the filing of its petition on February 7, 1961, and pending this Court’s disposition of the writ of certiorari, the further running and accumulation of forfeitures under § 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 723, 15 U. S. C. (1958 ed.) § 50. Petitioner’s liability for forfeitures accruing prior to February 7, 1961, is to abide the event of this litigation.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.