Legal Opinion

United States v. Fifty-Nine Tubes, more or less, of Lutein Tablets

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided May 7, 1940PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOOLSEY, District Judge.

My judgment in this cause is that the libels should be dismissed, without costs, for the reasons hereinafter indicated.

I. My subject matter jurisdiction is found in the provisions of the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906, Section 10, Title 21 United States Code, Section 14, 21 U.S.C.A. § 14.

As this is a proceeding in rem and the tablets here in question were seized in this district on September 14, 1938, and January 3, 1939, there can be no question of venue.

The claimant, Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., is a manufacturer of drugs at Baltimore, Maryland. The tablets…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Seven Cases of Eckman's Alternative v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. United States v. 17 BOTTLES, ETC.District Court, D. Maryland · 1932

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  2. United States v. Fifteen CartonsDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1942
  3. City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Unpublished Decision (8-11-2000)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API