Legal Opinion

A. O. Andersen & Co. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 6, 1922No. 3899PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRudkin, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The court below directed a verdict in favor of the defendant in error upon the ground that the article of food referred to in the statute is the single or individual can of salmon, and not the entire case or lot. If this interpretation of the statute is correct, the government of course failed in its proof, and will of necessity meet the same fate in every other case of this kind, unless it is able to prove that each and every part and parcel of the food product is adulterated within the meaning of the law. Is this a correct interpretation of the statute?

“Th…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Junge v. HeddenSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. United States v. Two Hundred Cases of Adulterated Tomato CatsupDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1914
  4. Junge v. HeddenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1889

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. United States v. 449 Cases, Containing Tomato PasteCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
  2. Donaldson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  3. United States v. Research Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
  4. United States v. 133 Cases of Tomato PasteDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. United States v. 184 Barrels Dried Whole EggsDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1943

36 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