Jim Walter Corporation

Volume 88 · 88 F.T.C. 367

Citation: 88 F.T.C. 367
Docket: 8986
Decision: 1976-09-10
Document type: interlocutory order
Case type: procedural
Outcome: other
Commission counsel: John J. O'Malley
Respondent counsel: John J. Voortman, W. Donald McSweeney and Susan A. Henderson, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, Ill. Dan L. Saltsman, Tampa, Fla. OrpDER DENYING Motion To PostpoNE ORAL ARGUMENT Respondent moves for a postponement of the oral argument in this matter from September 15, 1976, until some date after October 1976. According to the motion, respondent’s lead attorney has been engaged in a trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin since May 8, 1976, and expects to be so engaged through a substantial part of October 1976
Source: Original volume PDF
Original PDF: This decision as a PDF

Cite this decision

Jim Walter Corporation, 88 F.T.C. 367 (1976). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v088-0038

Report an error in this record (decision id v088-0038)

Order status: unknown. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

In THE MATTER OF JIM WALTER CORPORATION Docket 8986. Order, Sept. 10, 1976 Denial of motion to postpone oral argument. Appearances For the Commission: John J. O'Malley.

For the respondent: John J. Voortman, W. Donald McSweeney and Susan A. Henderson, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, Ill. Dan L. Saltsman, Tampa, Fla.

OrpDER DENYING Motion To Postpone ORAL ARGUMENT Respondent moves for a postponement of the oral argument in this matter from September 15, 1976, until some date after October 1976. According to the motion, respondent’s lead attorney has been engaged in a trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin since May 8, 1976, and expects to be so engaged through a substantial part of October 1976.

While the Commission has been willing to grant short postponements to accommodate irreconcilable scheduling conflicts, a six-week postponement is unwarranted, especially in view of the lack of any showing that another attorney could not be assigned to argue the appeal. See American General Insurance Co., Dkt. No. 8847, Order Denying Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Postpone Oral Argument, June 8, 1976. Furthermore, the motion is untimely since there is no indication that counsel could not have perceived his need for a continuance before this late date. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the aforesaid motion be, and it hereby is, denied. Commissioner Dole not participating by reason of absence. Complaint 88 F.T.C.

← 88 F.T.C. 362 · 88 F.T.C. 368 →