Legal Opinion
United States v. Undetermined Quantities of Various Articles of Device Consisting in Whole or in Part of Proplast II or Proplast HA
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided March 11, 1992No. Civ. A. H-91-610PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
HITTNER, District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America (“the Government”) brought this in rem forfeiture action pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“the Act”), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. Specifically, the Government alleges that the products under seizure are adulterated within the meaning of § 351(a) of the Act because they are not manufactured, packaged, processed or held in conformity with Good Manufacturing Practices regulations for medical devices, 21 C.F.R. 820, et seq. (“GMP”). The Government also alleges that the products are…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. 449 Cases, Containing Tomato PasteCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- United States v. Bel-Mar Laboratories, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1968
- United States v. General Foods Corp.District Court, N.D. New York · 1978
- United States v. Western Serum Co., Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 1980
3Cited by8 opinions
- prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,260 Lora Lohr, Michael Lohr, Her Husband v. Medtronic, Inc., a Foreign CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1995
- Nve Inc. v. Department Of Health And Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
- United States v. 789 Cases, More or LessDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1992
- Nutritional Health Alliance v. Food And Drug AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- NVE Inc. v. Department of Health & Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.