Legal Opinion
United States v. 42 JARS, ETC.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 11, 1958No. Civ. A. 1212-57PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTSHORNE, District Judge.
Libellant, United States Government, has seized a quantity of “Bee Royale” capsules, under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 334(a), as having been mis-branded. It also claims that the said product was a “new drug” within the meaning of the statute, 21 U.S.C.A. § 321 (p) (1), as to which statutory conditions precedent had not been taken by their producers and owners. Bee Royale, Inc., a New York corporation, now appears as owner and claimant and, after its application for summary judgment was denied herein, 1 filed objections…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Rogers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Curcio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- United States v. KordelSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. 42 Jars, More or Less, of an Article of Drug Labeled in Part "Bee Royale Capsules". Appeal of Bee Royale, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
- Casson Construction Co. v. Armco Steel Corp.United States District Court for the District of Arkansas · 1980
- The Communist Party of the United States of America v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
- United States v. 3963 BottlesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1959
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.