TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Seven Cartons, More or Less, Each Containing 12 Bags, Labeled in Part (Carton): "Ferro-Lac Swine Formula Concentrate," Etc.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEVEN CARTONS, MORE OR LESS, Each Containing 12 Bags, Labeled in Part (Carton): “FERRO-LAC SWINE FORMULA CONCENTRATE,” Etc., Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Seven Cartons, More or Less, Each Containing 12 Bags, Labeled in Part (Carton): "Ferro-Lac Swine Formula Concentrate," Etc., 424 F.2d 1364 (7th Cir. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 15, 1970
Docket
No. 17525
Judges
Enoch, Fairchild, Grant, Per Curiam
Citations
424 F.2d 13641970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9776

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The United States seized seven cartons of Ferro-Lac, alleging in a libel that the Ferro-Lac was unlawfully shipped by reason of (1) its being a new drug, (2) its containing unsafe food additives, and (3) its being misbranded. Claimant, Naremco, Inc., concedes that a finding in favor of the government on any one of the three charges is sufficient to result in condemnation of the product.

The district court, on motion for summary judgment, decided in favor of the government on both (1) and (2). Judge Morgan’s opinion is reported, United States v. 7 Cartons, More or Less, Etc. (S.D.Ill., 1968), 293 F.Supp. 660 . It is apparent that with respect to both (1) and (2) the critical question goes to the general recognition of the material among a described class of experts as meeting a specified standard. With respect to (1) the question is whether the material is so recognized as safe and effective for use under the conditions suggested in the label. With respect to (2) the question is whether the material is so recognized as having been adequately shown through scientific procedures to be safe under the conditions of the intended use. In neither respect need the government prove that the material is, in fact, unsafe.

The affidavits in support of and opposition to the government’s motion for summary judgment are adequately described in Judge Morgan’s opinion. We adopt Judge Morgan’s opinion with respect to (2), the unsafe food additive issue Claimant suggests with respect to (1) that Judge Morgan was weighing the assertions of the respective affiants. It is unnecessary to express an opinion with respect to (1) in view of our approval of his decision with respect to (2).

The portion of the judgment of condemnation asserting that the seized article is a new drug is stricken as unnecessary and the judgment is in all other respects affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →
1972: 31973: 11974: 11977: 21978: 11980: 31982: 11984: 11985: 11989: 12019: 219722026peak 1972 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. 7 Cartons, More OR Less, ETC., 293 F. Supp. 660 (S.D. Ill. 1968) 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list