Alleghany Pharmacal Corp

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

INTERLOCUTORY, VACATING, AND

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY ET AL.

Order denying motion by Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation that proceedings against it in connection with the price aspects of this case be dismissed.

ORDER DE YING:l10TION TO DISMISS

Respondent Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, by motion filed December 27, 1966, having requested that further proceedings against it in connection with the price aspects of this matter be dismissed without prejudice and, in the alternative, having suggested that this part of the case be considered separately from the patent aspects, with separate briefing schedule and oral argument; and The Commission having already determined that all contested issues of fact and law presented by the entire record will be considered and having set the time for the filing of briefs on such issues:

It is ordered That the motion filed by respondent Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation be, and it hereby is, denied. Commissioner Dixon not participating.

ALLEGHANY PHARMACAL CORP. ET AL.

Docket 7176. OTdM", Jan. , 1.967 Order denying complaint counsel's request for permission to file interlocutory appeal from rulings complained of.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO FILE

INTERLOCUTORY Appeal This matter is before the Commission upon complaint counsel's request for permission to fie an interlocutory appeal from the ruling of the hearing examiner requiring complaint counsel to put on rebuttal witnesses on December 9, 1966, rather than January, 1967, and refusing to receive the offer of testimony of two additional witnesses whom complaint counsel wished to put on the stand. Respondents fied their answer and supplementary answer in opposition on December 22 and December 27, 1966, respectively. The Commission has reviewed the order of the examiner and has determined that the request for permission to me an interlocutory appeal should be denied. The hearing examiner's rulings on the scope of rebuttal testimony should not be unduly restrictive. evertheless upon a review of his ruling, the Commission cannot say at this time that the hearing examiner has abused his discretion in this regard. Accordingly, the Commission is unable to find that there are here extraordinary circumstances requiring it to consider at this time the objections raised to the examiner's order in complaint counsel's request for permission to file an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly:

It is ordel' That complaint counsel's request fot permission to file an interlocutory appeal from the rulings complained of, be and it hereby is, denied.