Legal Opinion
United States v. Western Serum Co., Inc.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided October 10, 1980No. Civ. 77-925. Phx. WPCPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
COPPLE, District Judge.
In this enforcement action instituted by the United States under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-392 (1976) [the “Act”], the government seeks to enjoin the Western Serum Company and its principal officers from marketing “adulterated” drugs as prohibited by § 301(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 331(a). Section 302(a), 21 U.S.C. § 332(a), authorizes this Court to issue an injunction to prevent violations of § 301.
The government alleges that the defendants’ drugs are adulterated because under § 501(a)(2)(B), 21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(2)(B), they…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Ciba Corp. v. WeinbergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- The United States of America v. An Article of Drug . . . "Entrol-C Medicated", Naremco, Inc., Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- National Ass'n of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers v. Department of Health & Human ServicesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- United States v. 789 Cases, More or LessDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1992
- United States v. Undetermined Quantities of Various Articles of Device Consisting in Whole or in Part of Proplast II or Proplast HADistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1992
- United States v. Western Serum Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- United States v. Western Serum Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.