United States v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing a complaint for forfeiture under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 334. The Government’s complaint alleges that ap-pellee’s “Roux Lash and Brow Tint” was adulterated when introduced into and while in interstate commerce because it contains color additives, composed of silver sulfate, silver nitrate, and pyrogal-lol, that were “unsafe” because they have not been approved, exempted, or provisionally listed as required by statute [21 U.S.C. § 376(a)]. Appellee denied the material allegations of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Toilet Goods Association v. GardnerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1968
3Cited by3 opinions
- Brownlee v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
- Adams v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
- U.S. Aluminum Corp. v. Alumax, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1986