United States of America,plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Snoring Relief Labs Inc.,defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judge:
Snoring Relief manufactures SnorBan, an anti-snoring mouthpiece that it seeks to sell without a prescription. The government brought this in rem seizure action, claiming that SnorBan cannot be sold without a prescription because it is a Class III adulterated device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act), 21 U.S.C. § 351(f)(1)(B); SnorBan lacked pre-market approval; and it was “mis-branded” under 21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1). The district court granted the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) summary judgment motion and denied Snoring Relief’s…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Willapoint Oysters, Inc. v. EwingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1949
- United States v. BowenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Del Puerto Water District v. U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2003
- Dorsett v. Sandoz, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2010
- George v. Bay Area Rapid TransitCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- California State Grange v. National Marine Fisheries ServiceDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2008
- The Wilderness Society and the Alaska Center for the Environment v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an Agency of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.