Legal Opinion
Carl Brandenfels v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided April 2, 1963No. 18-7044PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice REED,
sitting by designation.
In May, 1949, the Post Office Department, as complainant, charged appellant Brandenfels, plaintiff below, with distributing fraudulent advertising through the mails to promote the sale of his hair-growing treatment, in violation of 39 U.S.C. §§ 259, 732. 1 Lengthy hearings were held before a hearing examiner in Washington, D. C., Chicago, and Portland, Oregon. In February, 1954, an Initial Decision adverse to appellant was entered by the Deputy Postmaster General, the hearing examiner who conducted the hearings having resigned. Appellant filed an…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Deering Milliken, Inc., a Corporation v. Reed Johnston, as Regional Director of the National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1961
- Reilly v. PinkusSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company v. Federal Power Commission, the Manufacturers Light and Heat Company, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Cohen v. Rental Housing CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Bowman v. UdallDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1965
- Freight Forwarders Institute v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967
- S. Jack Hinton v. Stewart L. Udall, Individually and as Secretary of the InteriorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1966
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.