Perpetual Federal Savings & Loan Association
Volume 90 · 90 F.T.C. 605
Cite this decision
Perpetual Federal Savings & Loan Association, 90 F.T.C. 605 (1977). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v090-0057
Report an error in this record (decision id v090-0057)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE Matrer OF PERPETUAL FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION Doket 9083. Interlocutory Order. Nov. 25. 1977 Denial of motion for withdrawal or disqualification of Chairman Pertschuk from participation in the decision of this matter on ground of prejudgment. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Respondent Perpetual Federal Savings & Loan Association on July 13, 1977, fied a motion asking alternatively that Chairman Pertschuk withdraw from participation in the decision of this matter or that he be disqualified. Respondent urged, as ground for the motion, that prejudgment of this case is evidenced by a letter sent by the Chairman to the Chairman of the Consumer Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, in connection with the Subcommittee s consideration of legislation to exclude savings and loan associations from the Commission jurisdiction.
By memorandum of September 15, 1977, Chairman Pertschuk dealt with the first branch of this motion, declining to withdraw and stating his reasons therefor. We have considered respondent' motion, complaint counsel's opposition, and Chairman Pertschuk' memorandum, and have determined that the motion for disqualification should be denied for the reasons stated by the Chairman. In particular, none of the authorities cited by respondent stands for the proposition that a pre-existing view on issues of law (as distinct from fact) on the part of a Commissioner, the most that could be made out here, is a ground for disqualification. To adopt this proposition would be not only to require each Commissioner (or, presumably, each judge) to decide any particular issue of law only once in his or her tenure, but to put in question the whole principle of stare decisis on the basis of which our judicial system has evolved. If it were true that each litigant is entitled to appear before a decisionmaker devoid of preconceptions as to the law applicable t. his case there would be no "law" in the sense that we understand it. That a decisionmaker forms a preconception on a novel issue of law out of an amalgam of rules applicable to analogous cases is no more offensive to this system than is reliance on a decision squarely in point.
It is therefore ordered, That respondent's motion be, and it hereby is, denied.
Modifed Order 90 FTC.