It shall be unlawful in the consular districts of the United States in China for any person whose permanent allegiance is due to the United States not licensed as a pharmacist within the meaning of this chapter to conduct or manage any pharmacy, drug or chemical store, apothecary shop, or other place of business for the retailing, compounding, or dispensing of any drugs, chemicals, or poisons, or for the compounding of physicians’ prescriptions, or to keep exposed for sale at retail, any drugs, chemicals, or poisons, except as hereinafter provided, or, except as hereinafter provided, for any person whose permanent allegiance is due to the United States not licensed as a pharmacist within the meaning of this chapter to compound, dispense, or sell, at retail, any drug, chemical, poison, or pharmaceutical preparation upon the prescription of a physician, or otherwise, or to compound physicians’ prescriptions, except as an aid to and under the proper supervision of a pharmacist licensed under this chapter. And it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation owing permanent allegiance to the United States owning partly or wholly or managing a pharmacy, drug store, or other place of business to cause or permit any person other than a licensed pharmacist to compound, dispense, or sell at retail any drug, medicine, or poison, except as an aid to and under the proper supervision of a licensed pharmacist. Where it is necessary for a person, firm, or corporation whose permanent allegiance is due to the United States and owning partly or wholly or managing a pharmacy, drug store, or other place of business to employ Chinese subjects to compound, dispense, or sell at retail any drug, medicine, or poison, such person, firm, or corporation, owner, part owner, or manager of a pharmacy, drug store, or other place of business may employ such Chinese subjects when their character, ability, and age of twenty-one years or over have been certified to by at least two recognized and reputable practitioners of medicine, or two pharmacists licensed under this chapter whose permanent allegiance is due to the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008).
United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “§ 2252 , and to ensure the public's health and general welfare by enacting laws proscribing narcotics trafficking, see 21 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. That the states have already comprehensively criminalized child abuse and drug distribution in no way relegates the federal government's…”
United States v. Facteau, 89 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “at 347 (citing 21 U.S.C. § 201 (m)) (emphasis added). Here, by contrast, Fabian is not accused of mislabeling a drug product, and thus the scope of the statutory requirement that statements or other materials "accompany" a product to be considered part of the product's labeling…”
United States v. Barry Garfinkel, 29 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 1994).
“The Touby Court held that the challenged statute, 21 U.S.C. § 201 (h), "passes muster even if greater congressional specificity is required in the criminal context.”
Nqadolo v. Care at Home, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00612 (D. Conn. Mar. 28, 2024).
“Plaintiffs assert in an Amended Complaint two causes of action: (1) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and (2) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (“CMWA”), Conn.”
Pierre v. City Of New York, No. 1:20-cv-05116 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2022).
“3 On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, a NYPD officer, asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), N.”
Nqadolo v. Care at Home, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00612 (D. Conn. July 23, 2024).
“The Amended Complaint contained two causes of action: (1) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and (2) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (“CMWA”), Conn.”
Nqadolo v. Care at Home, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00612 (D. Conn. Aug. 22, 2025).
“Dooley, United States District Judge: Through this civil action, Plaintiffs Nande Nqadolo and Pamela Mangali (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) assert that Defendants Care at Home LLC, Suzanne Karp, and Daniel Karp (collectively, “Defendants”) improperly withheld overtime that should…”
Richard Andrew Just. v. Georgia Dep't of Pub. Saf., 890 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).
“This appeal arises from the trial court’s dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity of Richard Andrew Justice’s claim for breach of contract against the Georgia Department of Public Safety (“DPS”), which claim was predicated on the failure of DPS to pay him overtime under…”
United States v. Stevens, No. 05-2497 (3d Cir. July 18, 2008).
“§ 2252 , and to ensure the public’s health and general welfare by enacting laws proscribing narcotics trafficking, see 21 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. That the states have already comprehensively criminalized child abuse and drug distribution in no way relegates the federal government’s…”
Priddy v. City of Kiowa, No. 97-3023 (10th Cir. July 22, 1998).
“Priddy (“Priddy”), brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 21 U.S.C. § 201 , et seq., (“FLSA”), alleging the Defendant-Appellee, City of Kiowa, violated the Act in failing to pay him compensation for weekend on-call time.”
United States v. Brown, No. 99-7030 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 1999).
“Finally, we reject Brown’s assertion that testimony by accomplices offered against him at trial was inadmissable because it was offered in exchange for considerations of leniency in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 201 (c)(2) (1994), as this - 2 - argument is foreclosed under our recent…”
Horton v. Norfolk S. Corp., 102 F. Supp. 2d 330 (M.D.N.C. 1999).
“2d 641 (1981) (claim under Fair Labor Standards Act, 21 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.). The second line of cases implicated here is represented by Gilmer v.”
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.