Legal Opinion
United States v. An Article of Device
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided April 4, 1984No. 83-1404PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.
Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq. (the “Act”), a prescription medical device is “misbranded” if it cannot be used safely and effectively for its intended purposes. The Toftness Radiation Detector (“TRD”) is a chiropractic instrument which purportedly detects electromagnetic radiation from the human body and focuses that radiation so that a chiropractor can detect conditions which require chiropractic treatment. The government sued to condemn the TRD as “mis-branded” under the Act and to enjoin the TRD’s inventor from producing, distributing…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Brady v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- United States v. First City National Bank of HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing HomeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
- United States v. Articles of Device Consisting of Three Devices . . . "Diapulse''Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Ronald H. Selle v. Barry Gibb, and Ronald H. Selle v. Barry GibbCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- Albert Slater v. Optical Radiation CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Michael L. Piaskowski v. John BettCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- United States v. An Article Of DeviceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- United States v. Michael A. Peters, A/K/A Tony BootsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.