21 U.S.C. § 1
SHORT TITLE.
“This Act may be cited as the ‘Methamphetamine Response Act of 2021’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases, 1929–2005 · leading case: Dist. of Columbia v. Little, 178 F.2d 13 (D.C. Cir. 1950).
Dist. of Columbia v. Little, 178 F.2d 13 (D.C. Cir. 1950). “2d 979 , it was held that the Amendment does not apply to attachments under the Food and Drug Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. In Camden County Beverage Co.”
United States v. S. B. Penick & Co., 136 F.2d 413 (2d Cir. 1943). “The appellants were convicted of violating the Food and Drugs Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., by making three interstate shipments of ephedrine sulfate which did not conform to the standards of the United States Pharmacopoeia.”
Pasadena Rsch. Labs., Inc. v. United States, 169 F.2d 375 (9th Cir. 1948). “” *384 The Supreme Court has repeatedly denounced equivocation and evasion by those who come within the reach of a statute that enunciates Governmental policy.”
United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938). “1486 , 21 U. S. C. §1 61-63), 1 which prohibits the shipment in *146 interstate commerce of skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat, so as to resemble milk or cream, transcends the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce or infringes the Fifth…”
Dixi-Cola Labs., Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 117 F.2d 352 (4th Cir. 1941). “768 , 21 U.S. C.A. § 1 et seq., that Coca-Cola was misbranded in that it contained no coca and little, if any, cola.”
Chapman v. Brown, 198 F. Supp. 78 (D. Haw. 1961). “Thus the original Pure Food and Drug Act, enacted in 1906, was in effect 66 including 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 and *115 2, expressly applying to Territories.”
Rsch. Labs., Inc. v. United States, 167 F.2d 410 (9th Cir. 1948). “Unless the question may be reduced to one of fact, as distinguished from mere opinion, we think these statutes cannot be invoked for the purpose of stopping the delivery of mail matter.”
United States v. King & Howe, Inc., 78 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1935). “Because of noncompliance in this respect with the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act (21 USCA § 1 et seq.), the importer was instructed to destroy or export the herbs within three months, and on failure to do so was notified to return them to customs custody.”
United States v. Two Bags, Each Containing 110 Pounds, Poppy Seeds, 147 F.2d 123 (6th Cir. 1945). “to - detect the difference between the natural Dutch blue or Turkish grey poppy seeds and the artificially colored British India white seeds, shipped in interstate commerce by the Arco Products Company.”
Triangle Candy Co. v. United States, 144 F.2d 195 (9th Cir. 1944). “Regulations promulgated under the old Act apparently gave the administrator the right to take samples and provided that “upon request one Subdivision, if available, shall be delivered to the party or parties interested.” Regulations 3, Subdivision (c).”
United States v. 133 Cases of Tomato Paste, 22 F. Supp. 515 (E.D. Pa. 1938). “The United States has filed its libel- in this case seeking the confiscation and condemnation under the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, 21 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., of .133 cases, more or less, each containing 100 cans of tomato paste, shipped by Harbor City Food Corporation from…”
Brown v. Parker, 39 F. Supp. 895 (S.D. Cal. 1941). “[7] "Sub-standard raisins" is defined by the Program to mean "raisins of a quality or grade below the quality or grade established by the Committee for standard raisins * * *, but which are not inferior raisins.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.