Legal Opinion

United States v. Article of Device Labeled in Part

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 30, 1961No. 39669Published

1Opinion of the Court

SWEIGERT, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon a motion by claimant, Elizabeth Blumenthal, to dismiss the libel or in the alternative, for return of the property pending trial.

The amended libel, filed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., 21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq., alleges that the property here involved, a device known as 110 V Vapozone, is a device within the meaning of Sec. 321(h); that it was shipped from Karlsruhe, Germany to San Francisco; that it was accompanied by six promotional leaflets intended to be used to promote the sale thereof…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kordel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Hipolite Egg Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. United States v. UrbuteitSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. United States v. 935 CASES MORE OR LESS, ETC.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
  5. Alberty Food Products Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API