Legal Opinion
United States v. French Sardine Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 2, 1935No. 7943PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
This action was begun by a libel in rem against 200 cases of tuna which were alleged to be “adulterated,” as that term is defined in section 8, par. 6, title 21, U.S.C.A., being section 7, par. 6, of the Food and Drug Act of June 30, 1906. The French Sardine Company appeared as owners thereof and denied the truth of the allegation contained in the libel. The issue of fact was submitted to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the claimant. The court, in entering judgment denying condemnation, included costs amounting to $141:38. The government appeals from this…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. WorleySupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Four Hundred & Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Davis v. Corona Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Erwin v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1889
- James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. 1500 Cases, More or LessCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1957
- Aycrigg v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1954
- United States of America, Libellant-Appellant v. 1500 Cases, More or Less, Etc., Smith Canning Company, Claimant-Appellee. United States of America, Libelant-Appellant v. 1473 Cases, More or Less, Etc., Smith Canning Company, Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1957
- Zeth v. Pennsylvania R.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1947
- United States v. 397 Cases, Etc., of Salad OilDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.