Legal Opinion
United States v. 42 JARS, ETC.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided April 11, 1958No. Civ. A. 1212-57PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTSHORNE, District Judge.
Under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. A. § 334(a), 1 the libellant seized 42 jars of what are called “Bee Royale Capsules”, as a drug which was misbranded, while held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce, within the meaning of the statute (21 U.S.C.A. § 352(f) (l)), 2 in that its labeling did not set forth the claimed conditions for the cure of which the product was purportedly sold, as it should have done, United States v. El Rancho Adolphus Products, D.C.M.D.Pa. 1956, 140 F.Supp. 645, 648, affirmed sub. nom. U. S. v.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- United States v. International Building Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Reilly v. PinkusSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- V. E. Irons, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1957
- United States v. El Rancho Adolphus Products, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. 42 Jars, More or Less, of an Article of Drug Labeled in Part "Bee Royale Capsules". Appeal of Bee Royale, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
- United States v. Howell F. BurchCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
- United States v. 42 JARS, ETC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1958
- United States v. 3963 BottlesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1959
- Moore v. DealDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.