Legal Opinion
Leonardi v. A. Habermann Provision Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 26, 1944No. 29723, 29725, 29727, 29724, 29726 and 29728PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
The plaintiffs in these cases predicated their right to recover on the alleged violation by the defendant of the pure-food statutes of this state. The sections involved are as follows:
Section 5774. “No person, within this state, shall * * * offer for-sale, sell or deliver, or have in his possession with intent to sell or deliver, a drug or article of food which is adulterated within the meaning of this chapter.”
Section 5775. “* * * The term ‘food,’ as used in this chapter, includes all articles used by man for food, drink * * * or condiment, whether simple, mixed or compound. *.# * ”
Section…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Rinaldi v. . Mohican Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Cheli v. Cudahy Bros. Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
- McSpedon v. KunzNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Portage Markets Co. v. GeorgeOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Rubbo v. Hughes Provision Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1941
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hughes Provision Co. v. La Mear Poultry & Egg Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1951
- Scheller v. Wilson Certified Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
- Arena v. John P. Squire Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Merck & Company, Inc. v. Floyd E. KiddCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1957
- Kobeckis v. BudzkoSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1967
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.