Court Opinion

ID: 9446544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:58:06.278406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:41.764533
License: Public Domain

VOGEL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I do not dispute the majority’s contention that “A substantial change in applicable law, occurring after the entry of an order or judgment, which alters the rule governing a case will ordinarily be *245given effect on review”, but I do not believe here that the after-the-fact amendment of the Nebraska Code to include deceptive practices “in any other state” is the kind of regulation by state law Congress had in mind. To force the citizens of other states to rely upon Nebraska’s regulation of the long distance advertising practices of the petitioner in the promotion and sale by mail or otherwise of insurance outside the State of Nebraska seems to me impractical and ineffective. This is much too frail a reed upon which to lean. The petitioner’s mail order business is not regulated and cannot be regulated by the laws of the states whose citizens are subjected to the mail disseminated advertising. I believe the order of the Federal Trade Commission falls squarely within the purview of the Section 2(b) proviso of the McCar-ran-Ferguson Act and should be sustained.