Legal Opinion
AMP INCORPORATED v. Gardner
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 29, 1967No. 67 Civ. 2115PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TENNEY, District Judge.
The principal question presented to the Court in this declaratory judgment action is whether certain items manufactured by plaintiff are “drugs” or “devices” within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-392 (1964). Plaintiff manufacturer and defendants, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, have each moved for summary judgment, plaintiff claiming the items are “devices” and the defendants claiming they are “drugs”. Both parties agree that there are no facts…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. DotterweichSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- The Toilet Goods Association, Inc. v. John w.ga Rdner, Secretary of Health, Education, and WelfareSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Utah Power & Light Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Biotics Research Corporation v. Margaret Heckler, Sec'y Etc., Seroyal Brands, Inc. v. Margaret Heckler, Sec'y Etc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Amp Incorporated v. John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and James L. Goddard, Commissioner of Food and DrugsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- United States v. Undetermined Quantities of Bottles of an Article of Veterinary DrugCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Article Consisting of 36 Boxes, More or LessDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1968
- United States v. Articles of Drug . . . HormoninDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.