Legal Opinion
United States v. 449 Cases, Containing Tomato Paste
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 22, 1954No. 166, Docket 22923PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Circuit Judge.
This appeal concerns a seizure proceeding under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act involving 449 cases of tomato paste allegedly “adulterated” within the meaning of § 402(a)(3) of that act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(3). The government as libelant has sought — so *569far unsuccessfully — condemnation of the food in question upon a showing that it contained tissues rotted, but not necessarily deleterious to health.
The tomato paste, imported from Portugal, was landed in Brooklyn in the Eastern District on April 9, 1951, the entry being in bond. Representatives •of the Federal…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- United States v. 5 Cases, More or Less, Containing "Figlia Mia Brand", Etc. (5 Cases)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950
- A. O. Andersen & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1922
- United States v. 133 Cases of Tomato PasteDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1938
- United States v. 184 Barrels Dried Whole EggsDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1943
- McDonough v. SmithMontana Supreme Court · 1930
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- In Re Chevron U.S.A., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1997
- Schwab v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2006
- United States v. ShonubiDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1995
- United States v. Thriftimart, Inc., a Corporation, Dba Smart & Final Iris Co., Gil P. Stewart, Wm. Todd, Sr., and Robert D. Jensen, IndividualsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
- Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1990
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.