United States v. 25 Cases, More or Less, of an Article of Device
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.
In this case we are called on to interpret the word “device” as used in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321(h)(2) (1988) (the Act). The government brought this action to seize the appellant’s inventory, believing it to consist of adulterated devices in interstate commerce. Id. § 331. The district court granted summary judgment for the government.
The Act delineates three classes of devices intended for human use based upon the degree of FDA oversight each class requires. Id. § 360c. Devices are placed in the third classification if “insufficient…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha WangSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Dole v. United SteelworkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi Ex Rel. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Noland v. WheatleyDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1993
- United States v. An Undetermined Number of Unlabeled Cases, Etc., Clinical Reference Laboratory, Inc., Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- Alabama Tissue Center Of The University Of Alabama Health Service Foundation, P.C. v. Louis W. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- United States v. Two Plastic Drums, More or Less of An Article of FoodCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- Alabama Tissue Center of University of Alabama Health Service Foundation v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.