Legal Opinion
United States v. 184 Barrels Dried Whole Eggs
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Decided December 22, 1943No. Civ. 853, 852, 1111PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DUFFY, District Judge.
This case is a consolidation of three in rem proceedings under Sec. 304(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 334(a). The claimant, Wisconsin Dried Egg Company of Oconto, Wisconsin, filed an answer denying that the eggs in actions Nos. 852 and 853 were in interstate commerce, and further denying adulteration in all three proceedings.
Sec. 304(a) of the act provides: “Seizure * * * Any article of food * * * that is adulterated or misbranded when introduced into or while in interstate commerce, * * * shall be liable to be proceeded against while in…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Kepner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Hipolite Egg Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United States v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- A. O. Andersen & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1922
- The Monte A.District Court, S.D. New York · 1882
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- United States v. 449 Cases, Containing Tomato PasteCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- United States v. Ellis Research Laboratories, Inc., and Robert W. Ellis, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1962
- United States v. Article Of DrugCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
- United States v. 1851 Cartons Labeled In Part H. & G. Famous Booth Sea Foods Whiting Frosted FishCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1945
- United States v. Article of DrugCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.