Legal Opinion
United States v. Device Labeled "Cameron Spitler Amblyo-Syntonizer"
District Court, D. Nebraska
Decided January 13, 1966No. Civ. 02099PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
VAN PELT, District Judge.
This in rem civil proceeding was instituted by the United States pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. The government seeks a decree condemning as misbranded certain devices known as Cameron Spitler Amblyo-Syntonizers. More specifically, the action is based upon Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 352(f) (1) which provides that a drug or device shall be deemed to be misbranded
“(f) Unless its labeling bears (1) adequate directions for use; * * * Provided, That where any requirement of clause (1) of this subsection, as…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Kordel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- United States v. El-O-Pathic Pharmacy United States v. Hudson Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- United States v. HohenseeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
- V. E. Irons, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1957
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- United States v. Michael KaplanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Coyne Beahm, Inc. v. United States Food & Drug AdministrationDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1997
- United States v. Articles of DrugCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- United States v. An Article Of FoodCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1973
- United States v. Diapulse Corporation of America, Also Known as the Diapulse Manufacturingcorporation of America, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.