From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dell Publishing Company v. Day

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 31, 1962
303 F.2d 766 (D.C. Cir. 1962)

Opinion

No. 16885.

Argued May 21, 1962.

Decided May 31, 1962.

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.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.


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." Administrative Procedure Act, § 10(e), 5 U.S.C. § 1009 (e). The judgment of the District Court, sustaining the Postmaster's decision, is accordingly

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Dell Publishing Company v. Day

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 31, 1962
303 F.2d 766 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
Case details for

Dell Publishing Company v. Day

Case Details

Full title:DELL PUBLISHING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. J. Edward DAY, Postmaster…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: May 31, 1962

Citations

303 F.2d 766 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
113 U.S. App. D.C. 1

Citing Cases

Standard Rate, Etc. v. U.S. Postal Serv

III. DISCUSSION At the outset, we note that the scope of review is wider than the "clearly wrong . . .…

Robertson v. Cameron

This perhaps is surplusage because the right to a writ of habeas corpus is a constitutional right, but it has…