Seven Cases of Eckman's Alternative v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. The facts, which involve the constitutionality, construction and application, of provisions of § 8 of the Food and Drugs Act as amended in 1912 in regard to misbranding of drugs, are stated in the opinion. The statute is a, penal statute and must be strictly construed. These libels do not state, or propérly state, any violation of the Pure Food Law, as amended.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. The facts, which involve the constitutionality, construction and application, of provisions of § 8 of the Food and Drugs Act as amended in 1912 in regard to misbranding of drugs, are stated in the opinion. The statute is a, penal statute and must be strictly construed. These libels do not state, or propérly state, any violation of the Pure Food Law, as amended. They contain no proper statement of contents of the circular; there is no statement, nor is it contended, that the alleged statements mentioned in the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hughes
Libels were filed by the United State^, in December, 1912, to .condemn certain articles of drugs (known as ‘Eckman’s Alterative’) as misbranded in violation of § 8 of the Food & Drugs Act.' The articles had been shipped in interstate commerce, from Chicago to Omaha, and remained-at the latter place unsold and in the un-. broken original packages. The two cases present the same questions, the libels being identical save with respect to quantities and the persons in possession, in each case demurrers were filed by the shipper, the Eckman Manufacturing Company, which challenged both the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Durland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Gloucester Ferry Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Hoke & Economides v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Russell v. Clark's ExecutorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
- AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING v. McANNULTYSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by93 opinions
- Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. DarbySupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Currin v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.