Legal Opinion
United States v. Arizona Canning Co.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided April 23, 1954No. 4773_1PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MURRAH, Circuit Judge.
In a libel proceedings brought under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, § 304(a), 52 Stat. 1044, 21 U.S.C.A. ■§ 334(a), the court gave judgment for The government with costs, but limited the allowance for travel of two government witnesses to 100 miles from the place of trial at Denver, Colorado. In so doing, the court followed what it ■ deemed the mandate of Rule 45(e)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which authorizes the subpoena ■of a witness at a hearing or trial “any .place within the district, or at any place without the district that is…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1949
- Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Four Hundred & Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Globe Indemnity Co. v. Puget Sound Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- T. & M. Transp. Co. v. S. W. Shattuck Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1947
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Garriga v. Tribunal Superior de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1963
- True Temper Corporation, and Cross-Appellee v. Cf&i Steel Corporation, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- Kemart Corporation, a Corporation v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Bank of America v. Loew's International CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1958
- Hurst v. HurstCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1965
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.