39 C.F.R. § 952.30

Supplemental orders

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

When the Chief Postal Inspector or his or her designee, or the Chief Postal Inspector's designated representative shall have reason to believe that a person is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of any such orders by conducting the same or a similar enterprise under a different name or at a different address, he or she may file a petition with accompanying evidence setting forth the alleged evasion or attempted evasion and requesting the issuance of a supplemental order or orders against the name or names allegedly used. Notice shall then be given by the Recorder to the person that the order has been requested and that an answer may be filed within 10 days of the notice. The Judicial Officer, for good cause shown, may hold a hearing to consider the issues in controversy, and shall, in any event, render a final decision granting or denying the supplemental order or orders.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1994–1994 · leading case: Washington Mint v. United States Postal Serv., 919 F. Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Washington Mint v. United States Postal Serv., 919 F. Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1994). · cites it 2× “” 39 C.F.R. § 952.30 (1993). The defendant claims that no hearing was necessary because the question of whether the new advertisements violated the Cease and Desist order could be determined solely by examining the ads.”

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.