Dean Foods Co. v. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES E. DOYLE, District Judge.
When plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was briefed and argued, plaintiff contended that Wis.Stats. § 97.48(1)1 was inapplicable to Choco-Riffic. Plaintiff asserted that § 97.48(1) “is simply a labeling statute designed to prevent consumer confusion and deception. . .. ” Memorandum in support of motion for temporary restraining order, filed February 14, 1978, pages 2-3. It was undisputed, and no doubt it remains undisputed, that the label borne by Choco-Riffic states: “A NONDAIRY DRINK — CONTAINS NO MILK-FAT.” Therefore, plaintiff…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- 62 Cases of Jam v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. 62 Cases, More or Less, Containing Six Jars of Jam, EtcCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950
- United States v. 62 CasesDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 1949
- Dean Foods Co. v. Wisconsin Department of AgricultureDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1979