Legal Opinion
United States v. Two Hundred Cases of Canned Salmon
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided April 28, 1923No. Nos. 419, 531PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HUTCHESON, District Judge.
These two cases are proceedings under separate numbers against two lots of salmon—one originally libeled in Galveston, and proceeded against in Galveston under D. R. No. 724, later transferred to Houston; the other libeled against in Houston, and proceeded against in Houston under D. R. No. 419.
The government contends for condemnation and forfeiture on the *158ground (1) that the articles are misbranded; and (2) that they are adulterated, in that they consist wholly or in part of filthy, decomposed, and putrid animal substance, in violation of sections 7 and 8 of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hoke & Economides v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Hipolite Egg Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- McDermott v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- A. O. Andersen & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1922
- Hall-Baker Grain Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. 449 Cases, Containing Tomato PasteCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- United States v. 184 Barrels Dried Whole EggsDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1943
- United States v. 1851 Cartons Labeled In Part H. & G. Famous Booth Sea Foods Whiting Frosted FishCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1945
- Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952
- United States v. 43½ Gross Rubber Prophylactics Labeled in Part "Xcello's Prophylactics"District Court, D. Minnesota · 1946
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.