16 C.F.R. § 4.6
Cooperation with other agencies
It is the policy of the Commission to cooperate with other governmental agencies to avoid unnecessary overlapping or duplication of regulatory functions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1979–2004 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Percudani, 844 A.2d 35 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
Commonwealth v. Percudani, 844 A.2d 35 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). “The Federal Trade Commission has by regulation, 16 C.F.R. § 4.6 (2004), committed itself to cooperate with other governmental agencies to prevent unnecessary duplication of regulatory functions.”
United States v. Wesley G. Craner, 652 F.2d 23 (9th Cir. 1981). “16 C.F.R. § 4.6 (1980) prohibits driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in park areas.”
Edward J. Fleming, III v. Fed. Trade Comm'n Milton Bradley Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 670 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “16 C.F.R. § 4.6 (1980). 3 . At least some of the access requests were pending when the Improvements Act, Pub.”
Bronson v. Swinney, 648 F. Supp. 1094 (D. Nev. 1986). “See 16 C.F.R. § 4.6 (1980). The penalty imposed for the offense was the greatest the Secretary had power to impose.”
Interco, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 490 F. Supp. 39 (D.D.C. 1979). “11 (b)) and after determining that access was in accord with Commission policy to cooperate with other government agencies engaged in law enforcement ( 16 C.F.R. § 4.6 ), indicated his intention to make the disclosure requested.”
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 475 F. Supp. 338 (D.D.C. 1979). “See Procedures and Rules of Practice for the Federal Trade Commission, 16 C.F.R. § 4.6 (1978). The rule states: “It is the policy of the Commission to cooperate with other governmental agencies to avoid unnecessary overlapping or duplication of regulatory functions.”
Lieberman v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 771 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1985). “As part of the FTC’s policy “to cooperate with other governmental agencies to avoid unnecessary overlapping or duplication of regulatory functions,” 16 C.F.R. § 4.6 (1985), federal regulations allow state law enforcement agents to request access to Commission records if the…”
Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 496 F. Supp. 838 (N.D. Ind. 1980). “16 C.F.R. §§ 4.6 , 4.11(a)(2). Jaymar then initiated its effort to keep portions of these files closed by requesting a grant of confidentiality from the F.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.