Legal Opinion
United States v. Article Consisting of 36 Boxes, More or Less
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided April 23, 1968No. 1873PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STEEL, District Judge.
This civil in rem seizure action was instituted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq, (1964) by the United States against 36 bottles of “Line Away Temporary Wrinkle Smoother” and labels and leaflets pertaining to it. The Act authorizes the United States to bring a libel against any misbranded drug using the channels of interstate commerce. It likewise authorizes the United States to bring a libel against any “new drug”, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 321 (p), similarly used, unless an application filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355 has…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. DotterweichSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- 62 Cases of Jam v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. Allan Drug Corporation, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1966
- Amp Incorporated v. John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and James L. Goddard, Commissioner of Food and DrugsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Shafer v. Reo Motors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Rochester v. KatalanSupreme Court of Delaware · 1974
- Rutherford v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1977
- Business Equipment Center, Ltd. v. DeJur-Amsco Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1978
- E.R. Squibb and Sons, Inc. v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health & Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
- Lemmon Pharmacal Co. v. RichardsonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1970
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.