All articles known as oleomargarine, butterine, imitation, process, renovated, or adulterated butter, or imitation cheese, or any substance in the semblance of butter or cheese not the usual product of the dairy and not made exclusively of pure and unadulterated milk or cream, transported into any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, and remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall, upon the arrival within the limits of such State or Territory or the District of Columbia, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory or the District of Columbia, enacted in the exercise of its police powers to the same extent and in the same manner as though such articles or substances had been produced in such State or Territory or the District of Columbia, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise.
Notes of Decisions
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963).
“193 , 21 U. S. C. § 25 . But this proviso was presumably intended to do no more than recognize explicitly an accommodation between federal and state interests to which Congress and the decisions of this Court have consistently adhered.”
Grocery Mfrs. of Am., Inc. v. Gerace, 581 F. Supp. 658 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
· cites it 4× “imitation cheese, or any substance in the semblance of butter or cheese not the usual product of the dairy and not made exclusively of pure and unadulterated milk or cream, transported into any State .”
Grocery Mfrs. of Am., Inc. v. Gerace, 755 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1985).
· cites it 2× “We draw additional support for our conclusion from the language of 21 U.S.C. § 25 (1982). That section provides, in part, that “imitation cheese[] or any substance in the semblance of .”
Miller v. Stand. Nut Margarine Co. of Florida, 49 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1931).
“Before that action was taken several courts, as above stated, had decided in contested eases, to which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or his subordinate, was a party, that a nut product in content and appearance identical with appellee’s product, Southern Nut Product, was…”
Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson, 116 F.2d 227 (5th Cir. 1940).
“” 21 U.S.C.A. § 25 . Now it is true that this section does not in terms refer to the ingredients, such as packing stock or country butter, from which the processed or renovated butter is manufactured.”
Paulino v. United States (D. Guam 2015).
“Conviction, Sentence and Appeal 23 On October 6, 2010, the Petitioner was charged by Indictment with the following offenses: 24 Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Count I) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 25 841(a)(1), 846 and § 960(c); Conspiracy to Commit…”
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.