United States v. Diapulse Manufacturing Corp. of America
District Court, D. Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND FOR A NEW TRIAL
BLUMENFELD, District Judge.
This is an in rem action against a device which the Government alleged was misbranded. Pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 334(a) and (b) (Supp.1965), the Food and Drug Administration seized one “Diapulse” machine, and filed a libel of information against it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The libel alleged that the machine was misbranded, i. e., that the labeling of the device was “false or misleading in any…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnultySupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING v. McANNULTYSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Kordel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Seven Cases of Eckman's Alternative v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Leach v. CarlileSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. Diapulse Corporation of America, Also Known as the Diapulse Manufacturing Corporation of America, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
- United States v. Sene X Eleemosynary Corp., Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1979
- United States v. an Article of Device ... DiapulseCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
- United States v. Diapulse Corporation of America, Also Known as the Diapulse Manufacturingcorporation of America, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975