Legal Opinion
United States v. 11¼ Dozen Packages of Article Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly Powders for Drunkenness
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided June 17, 1941No. 567PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KNIGHT, District Judge.
The libellant seeks condemnation of certain articles of alleged drug products described as “11^4 Dozen Packages of article labeled in part ‘Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo Fly Powders for Drunkenness.’ ” Libel is brought under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of June 25, 1938, Title 21 U.S.C.A. and is based upon the claim that the aforesaid articles *209are misbranded under subdivision (a) and (j) of Section 352 of Title 21 U.S.C.A.
It is admitted that the articles in question were shipped in Interstate Commerce, that is from the State of Pennsylvania to the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Goldstein v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- United States v. LeeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
- Chichester Chemical Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1931
- Hall v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1920
- United States v. Dr. David Roberts Veterinary Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Aronberg v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1942
- Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults of Louisiana, Inc. v. Playboy EnterprisesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- Maurice J. Feil and Leo a Loeb, Individually and as Co-Partners Trading as the Enurtone Company v. Federal Trande CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- United States v. 43½ Gross Rubber Prophylactics Labeled in Part "Xcello's Prophylactics"District Court, D. Minnesota · 1946
- United States v. Diapulse Manufacturing Corp. of AmericaDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1967
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.