Case ID: f2d_303/html/0766-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DELL PUBLISHING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. J. Edward DAY, Postmaster General, Appellee.
    No. 16885.
    United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
    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.
   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.