# Federal Trade Commission v. Gibson Products of San Antonio, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 22, 1978 · 569 F.2d 900

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464499

## Case

- **Full name:** FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GIBSON PRODUCTS OF SAN ANTONIO, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 22, 1978
- **Citations:** 569 F.2d 900; 1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 62,068; 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11059
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Brown, Godbold, Mehrtens, Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464499

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that compliance with summons did not moot appeal when further relief was available from appellate court through order to return subpoenaed documents and to forbid use of documents in ongoing adjudication
- finding appeal was not moot because a favorable outcome could effect both the return of contested documents and the limitation of their use in future hearings (first citing Atl. Richfield v. FTC, 546 F.2d 646, 650 (5th Cir. 1977); then citing FTC v. Browning, 435 F.2d 96 , 97 …

## Opinion text

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
The petition for rehearing, which does not challenge the Court’s holding, primarily requests the Court to delete certain words and phrases that might prejudice Gibson. We reiterate that we express no opinion on the merits of the case. None of the language is to be taken as a prejudgment on the merits of the case whether between Gibson and the FTC or between Gibson and other private parties. The comments are principally made to explain the relevance of the subpoenas.
No disparagement is intended of Gibson for having vigorously asserted its contentions that we have examined and overruled.
We do, however, amend the opinion in the first sentence of the second paragraph of footnote nine by deleting the word “this” and substituting “an analogous.” We also delete the last sentence of the opinion which reads: “The five Gibson corporations cannot keep playing hide-and-seek with the FTC.” In all other respects, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464499. Public record. Not legal advice.