Legal Opinion
United States v. Herold
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided December 6, 1955No. Crim. 44013PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRUCHHAUSEN, District Judge.
The defendant, Mandel Herold, makes this motion under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., for an order suppressing evidence claimed to have been illegally procured and for incidental relief.
The information, filed against the defendants, Mandel Herold, proprietor of a drug store known as the Mayfair Drug Company, and Alexander Braaf, his pharmacist (now deceased), charged that they dispensed drugs without a prescription in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S. C.A. § 331 (k), hereinafter referred to as the Food…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. Crescent-Kelvan Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- United States v. 75 Cases, More or Less, Each Containing 24 Jars of Peanut ButterCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1944
- United States v. Arnold's Pharmacy, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1953
- United States v. Scientific Aids Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1954
- United States v. Lyon Drug Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1954
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dr. Samuel J. De Freese and Marsha Jean Simmons Defreese v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
- United States v. Gel Spice Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1985
- Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, Inc., in the Matter of Establishment Inspection Of: D/B/A Wedgewood Pharmacy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Wedgewood Village v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005