Legal Opinion
United States v. an Article . . . Acu-Dot . . .
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided February 11, 1980No. C 79-2041, C 79-2331 and C 79-2332PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ADJUDICATION
LAMBROS, District Judge.
This action is the result of a libel of information brought by the United States of America for the condemnation of numerous cases of an over-the-counter medical device called an Acu-dot, as provided for in 21 U.S.C. § 334. 1 The American firm that markets the seized devices, Acu-dot Corp., was the sole claimant-intervenor responding to the published notice of the in rem action. The Court has been very much aware throughout the pendency of this action that the economic viability of Acu-dot Corp. is exclusively founded on its…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Formica Insulation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- United States v. John Andreadis A/K/A John Andre and Drug Research CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- Rutherford v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1977
- United States v. ONE DEVICE, ETC.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Pantron I Corporation, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Federal Trade Commission v. QT, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2006
- Schronk v. City of BurlesonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2009
- Western States Medical Center v. ShalalaDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1999
- Jonathan Daniel Rushing v. State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.