Legal Opinion
United States v. Thirty Dozen Packages of Roach Food
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided January 28, 1913PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Proceeding by the United States for condemnation of Thirty Dozen Packages of Roach Food. On exceptions to answer.
1Opinion of the Court
ROSE, District Judge.
The question for determination is the meaning of the word “inert” in clause 3, par. 4, § 8, Insecticide Act 1910. By that clause an insecticide, other than parís green-or lead arsenate, is declared to be misbranded—
“if it consists partially or completely of an inert substance o-r substances which do not prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate insects or fungi and does not have the names and percentage amounts of each and every one of such inert ingredients plainly and correctly stated on the label: Provided, however, that in lieu of naming and stating the percentage amount of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McClanahan v. California Spray-Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1953
- United States v. Two Cases of Chloro-Naptholeum DisinfectantDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1914
- McClanahan v. California Spray-Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1953
- United States v. Two Cases of Sulpho-NaptholDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1914