LOCATION: Where Penn was killed
DOCKET NO.: 67
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1965-1967)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
CITATION: 384 US 373 (1966)
ARGUED: Mar 03, 1966
DECIDED: Jun 06, 1966
Facts of the case
Media for Cheff v. Schnackenberg
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 03, 1966 in Cheff v. Schnackenberg
Paul Theodore Cheff, Petitioner, versus Elmer J. Schnackenberg et al.
Joseph E. Casey:
Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.
At the outset I would like to make a comment about rather trivial, but recent development.
Last night when I returned to my office about 4 o'clock, I found a bare copy of a letter from the Office of the Solicitor General unsigned which was addressed to the clerk of court saying, Dear Mr. Davis, the underlying decision of the Federal Trade Commission in this case which is officially reported at 55 F. T. C. 55 does not appear in the printed record.
For the convenience of the Court during oral argument, we had reproduced in a -- transmitting sufficient copies for its distribution.
The petitioner is not a party to that proceeding.
The petitioner is here because he was sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of a court order.
And the -- I've merely voice my objection because I think that it gives this document which can be based on different evidentiary rules from what we have in courts a prominence and the significance which it doesn’t deserve but I'm sure that the --
We'll inquire of the Solicitor General on -- when he makes his argument as to the propriety of it, Mr. Casey.
Joseph E. Casey:
This case arose out of a Federal Trade Commission cease and desist order against Holland Furnace Company.
The date was August 5th, 1959.
Holland Furnace Company was engaged in the business of selling furnaces, retailing them in what is known as the replacement of furnaces.
Their salesmen made house to house calls.
It was a company that was on the New York Stock Exchange at the time.
It did business in 44 different states.
It had 500 branch offices and 5000 salesmen.
And the -- at that time was doing a gross business of $30 million a year.
The petitioner was president and chairman of the board.
The -- after the cease and desist order of August 5th, 1959, the Holland Furnace Company initiated proceedings before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to review the Commission's cease and desist order.
It was during those proceedings that the Federal Trade Commission through its attorney asked for a pendente lite order against Holland Furnace Company, which was issued.
That was issued August 5th, 1959.
The cease and desist order of the Commission was dated July 7th, 1958, but the pendente lite order, August 5th, 1959 is the one which the petitioner is charged with having violated.
Now, I make a point of the fact that the Commission's cease and desist order was against Holland Furnace Company.
The petitioner was not a party to it.
The cease and desist order of the Court of Appeals of August 5th, 1959 was against the Holland Furnace Company, not even reciting agents, representatives and so forth and the petitioner was not a party to it.
The pendente lite order against the Holland Furnace Company was made permanent on November 7th, 1961.
Now, the Holland Furnace Company on May 1962 had been taken over by a new management.
The new management on July 27th, 1962 discontinued business of replacing furnaces went out of that portion of the business wherein violations had been charged.
This is July 27th, 1962.