Legal Opinion
United States v. 43½ Gross Rubber Prophylactics Labeled in Part "Xcello's Prophylactics"
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided February 11, 1946No. Civil Action 1502PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NORDBYE, District Judge.
A libel of information was filed against the goods described in the caption 'on the theory that they were adulterated within the meaning of 21 U.S.C.A. § 351(c) and that they were misbranded within the meaning of 21 U.S.C.A. § 352(a). The goods were labeled “Prophylactics” on the carton in which they were contained, and the Government contends that such labeling constitutes misbranding within the meaning of the Act. The articles consist of certain rubber devices sold ostensibly for the purpose of preventing transmission of venereal disease. The government witnesses…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. DotterweichSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- A. O. Andersen & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1922
- United States v. Research Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
- United States v. 1851 Cartons Labeled In Part H. & G. Famous Booth Sea Foods Whiting Frosted FishCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1945
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1990
- Dean Rubber Manufacturing Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1966
- Gellman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1947
- United States v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 1978
- United States v. 30 Cases, More or Less, Leader Brand Strawberry Fruit SpreadDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1974
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.