United States v. Newton Tea & Spice Co.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Prosecution against the Newton Tea & Spice Company under the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. On motion to quash information.
1Opinion of the Court
PECK, District Judge.
On motion to quash the information. The defendant, upon the filing of the information, voluntarily appeared *395thereto, and moved to quash the same, upon the grounds; First, that the information is indefinite and docs not apprise the defendant of. the facts constituting the alleged crime with such certainty and particularity as to enable the defendant to know what it has to meet; second, the information attempts to charge the defendant with the commission of a crime by way of argument and conclusion; and, third, the court has no jurisdiction.
[1,2] First. The information is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Weeks v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- United States v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Simpson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
- United States v. 150 Cases of Fruit PuddineDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Albrecht v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- United States v. 7 Jugs, Etc., of Dr. Salsbury's RakosDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1944
- United States v. McDonaldDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1923
- Newton Tea & Spice Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1923
- United States v. Commercial Creamery Co.District Court, E.D. Washington · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.