Legal Opinion
United States v. Various Articles of Device Identified in Attachment "A"
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Decided January 1, 1992No. CIV-2-91-416PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
February 26, 1992
HULL, District Judge. .
This seizure action is before the Court to consider a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. After a careful review of the record as a whole, the Court finds that Sporicidin’s disinfecting products are devices within the meaning of the FFDCA 21 U.S.C. § 321(h) because they are intended for the mitigation and prevention of disease in man, and specifically for use on equipment used in medical treatment rooms. The Court also finds that this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- United States v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., and 14 Boxes, More or Less, ... Fiorinal With Codeine No. 3Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. BowenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2438, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3188 United States of America, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. John Bowen, an Individual Dba Asepsis, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- United States v. All Articles of Drug Consisting of Finished & In-Process ProductsDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2002