Legal Opinion

Package Marking

Pennsylvania Department of Justice

Decided September 19, 1950Published

1Opinion of the Court

Miller, Deputy Attorney General,

This department is in receipt of your letter in which you ask if the word “net” should be included in the content declaration on commodities put up in package form under the provisions of section 7 of the Act of July 24, 1913, P. L. 965, as amended, 76 PS §247, sometimes referred to as the Commodities Act.

You also state that some manufacturers and processors take exception to the requirement that the word “net” Is included in all quantity declarations of commodities put up by them in package form. They insist the Commodity Act is. being complied with when a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Scott v. HartleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  2. City of Seattle v. GoldsmithWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Kiessig v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. State ex rel. Washington Mill Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1906

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

Powered by the Exa API