Legal Opinion
United States v. Piuma
District Court, S.D. California
Decided July 22, 1941No. Civ. 927-RJPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JENNEY, District Judge.
This is an action by the United States to recover civil penalties prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (l). The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment upon the pleadings.
Defendant sells and distributes, from his place of business in Los Angeles to customers in various states and in the District of Columbia, a medical preparation known as “Glendage”.
The complaint alleges and the answer admits the issuance and service by the Federal Trade Commission of a complaint dated September 5, 1934; the appearance and answer of the defendant before the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Bunte Bros.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Shields v. Utah Idaho Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Justin Haynes & Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Farmington Dowel Products Co. v. Forster Mfg. Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1970
- United States v. St. Regis Paper CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- United States v. Willard Tablet Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1944
- New Jersey Wood Finishing Company v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, and Essexwire Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1964
- The State of North Carolina v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.