Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company
Volume 83 · 83 F.T.C. 1356
Cite this decision
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 83 F.T.C. 1356 (1974). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v083-0128
Report an error in this record (decision id v083-0128)
Cited by 1 later FTC decisions
- RSR CORPORATION cited_neutral
Cites
- 79 F.T.C. 696, pin 36 — DANCER-FITZGERALD-SAMPLE, INC cited_neutral
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE MATTER OF THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY INC. Docket 8916. Interlocutory Order, March 7, 1974 Order denying motion to intervene and request for oral argument by National Association of Food Chains for purpose of requesting stay. of proceedings and re-examination of Trade Regulation Rule Governing Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices. :
Appearances For the Commission: Joel P. Bennett, Michael McCarey, and Rossalind D. Lazarus.
st. JOE MINERALS CORP. 1357 1357 Order For the respondent: Collier, Shannan, Rill, & Edwards, Wash., D.C.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE The National Association of Food Chains has filed a “Motion to Intervene For Purpose of Requesting Stay of Proceedings and Reexamination of Trade Regulation Rule,” received Feb. 6, 1974. To the extent that petitioner seeks through its motion to participate as a party in the instant adjudicative proceeding, its motion must be denied. As members of the public who may be affected by the “Trade Regulation Rule Governing Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices,” petitioners have a perfect right to petition the Commission to reexamine that rule. They have, by separate request, done so, and the Commission has considered their request. However, the possibility that an adjudica- _ tive proceeding will result in an interpretation of a law or regulation which may be applicable as a legal precedent to others not accused in the adjudicative proceeding, cannot be grounds for intervention in that proceeding by all who may possibly be affected in this way by it. Where parties have been allowed to intervene in adjudicative proceedings, it has generally been because some important interest of the petitioner would be affected by the order which might be issued in the proceeding. That is clearly not the case here.” The Commission also has determined that oral argument is unnecessary for a determination of the issues in this matter. Therefore, It is ordered, That petitioner’s motion to intervene and its request for oral argument thereupon be, and they hereby are, denied.