Dell Publ'g Co., Inc. v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster Gen., 303 F.2d 766 (D.C. Cir. 1962).
Search
Dell Publ'g Co., Inc. v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster Gen., 303 F.2d 766 (D.C. Cir. 1962). Book View Copy Cite
DELL PUBLISHING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant,
v.
J. Edward DAY, Postmaster General, Appellee
16885.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
May 31, 1962.
303 F.2d 766
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.
Miller, Bazelon, Wright.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
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.