21 U.S.C. § 332

Injunction proceedings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Jurisdiction of courts

The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of the Territories shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown 11 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma. to restrain violations of section 331 of this title, except paragraphs (h), (i), and (j).

(b) Violation of injunction

In case of violation of an injunction or restraining order issued under this section, which also constitutes a violation of this chapter, trial shall be by the court, or, upon demand of the accused, by a jury.

(June 25, 1938, ch. 675, § 302, 52 Stat. 1043; Pub. L. 87–781, title I, § 103(d), title II, § 201(c), Oct. 10, 1962, 76 Stat. 784, 793; Pub. L. 103–80, § 3(d), Aug. 13, 1993, 107 Stat. 775.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–80, § 3(d)(1), struck out “, and subject to the provisions of section 17 (relating to notice to opposite party) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes’, approved October 15, 1914, as amended (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 28, sec. 381),” after “for cause shown”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–80, § 3(d)(2), struck out at end “Such trial shall be conducted in accordance with the practice and procedure applicable in the case of proceedings subject to the provisions of section 22 of such Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 28, sec. 387).”

1962—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 87–781, § 103(d), struck out “(e),” after “paragraphs”.

Pub. L. 87–781, § 201(c), struck out “(f),” after “paragraphs”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1962 Amendment

Amendment by section 103(c) of Pub. L. 87–781 effective on first day of seventh calendar month following October 1962, see section 107 of Pub. L. 87–781, set out as a note under section 321 of this title.

Pub. L. 87–781, title II, § 203, Oct. 10, 1962, 76 Stat. 793, provided that: “The amendments made by this title [amending this section and section 374 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 321 and 374 of this title] shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 10, 1962].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 179 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1943–2025 · leading case: United States v. Lane Labs-Usa Inc, a Corp. Andrew J. Lane, an Individual, 427 F.3d 219 (3rd Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Lane Labs-Usa Inc, a Corp. Andrew J. Lane, an Individual, 427 F.3d 219 (3rd Cir. 2005). · cites it 7× “The District Court had jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.”

Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001). · cites it 2× “V), [3] the FDA may respond to fraud by seeking injunctive relief, 21 U. S. C. § 332 , and civil penalties, 21 U.”

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). · cites it 2× “III To enforce the various substantive prohibitions contained in the FDCA, the Act provides for injunctions, 21 U. S. C. § 332 , criminal sanctions, §§ 333 and 335, and seizure of any offending food, drug, or cosmetic article, § 334.”

Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., Inc., 387 U.S. 167 (1967). · cites it 4× “§ 331 , subject to injunction, § 302, 21 U. S. C. § 332 , criminal penalties, § 303, 21 U.”

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. AbbVie Inc, 976 F.3d 327 (3rd Cir. 2020). “at 223 ; 21 U.S.C. § 332 (a). We explained Porter and Mitchell “charted an analytical course that seems fairly easy to follow: (1) a district court sitting in equity may order restitution unless there is a clear statutory limitation on the district court’s equitable jurisdiction…”

United States v. Spectro Foods Corp., a Corp., 544 F.2d 1175 (3rd Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “Presently before the Court is an appeal from a Preliminary Injunction secured by the government pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“the Act”), 21 U.S.C. § 332 (a), and from an Order for Civil Contempt arising out of alleged violations of a Temporary Restraining…”

United States v. Sene X Eleemosynary Corp., Inc., 479 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1979). · cites it 4× “FINDINGS OF FACT Introduction This is an injunction action brought pursuant to section 302(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 332 (a) (the Act), which grants federal district courts jurisdiction to restrain violations of section 301 of the Act, 21 U.”

United States v. Ten Cartons, Ener-B Nasal Gel, 888 F. Supp. 381 (E.D.N.Y 1995). · cites it 6× “Approximately eighteen months later, on May 11, 1990, the Government brought a second action against Nature’s Bounty in personam, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 332 (a), seeking to permanently enjoin Nature’s Bounty from selling Ener-B.”

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597 (1966). · cites it 2× “); § 302 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U. S. C. § 332 (1964 ed.); § 7 (b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.”

United States v. Blue Ribbon Smoked Fish, Inc., 179 F. Supp. 2d 30 (E.D.N.Y 2001). · cites it 3× “Suttenberg (“Suttenberg”), Pablo Negron (“Negron”), and Susan Dozortsev (“Do-zortsev”) (collectively, the “defendants”) under 21 U.S.C. § 332 (a), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “Act” or “FDCA”).”

McLaughlin v. Bayer Corp., 172 F. Supp. 3d 804 (E.D. Pa. 2016). “1012 (citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 332 (providing for injunctive relief), 333(f)(1)(A) (providing for civil penalties), 333(a) (providing for criminal prosecutions), 334(a)(2)(D) (allowing seizure of the device), and 372 (authorizing the FDA to conduct investigations)) (additional…”

United States v. 22 Rectangular or Cylindrical Finished Devices, 714 F. Supp. 1159 (D. Utah 1989). · cites it 4× “THE INJUNCTION ISSUE The government requests the court to enter an injunction pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 332 (a) (1972) 19 to halt the defendants’ persistent violations of the law.”

Show all 179 citing cases →

— 21 U.S.C. § 332(a) — 4 cases

United States v. Articles of Drug, 601 F. Supp. 392 (D. Neb. 1984).

United States v. Lit Drug Co., 333 F. Supp. 990 (D.N.J. 1971).

United States v. Wilson-Williams, Inc., 24 F.R.D. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).

United States v. W. F. Morgan & Sons, 155 F. Supp. 847 (E.D. Va. 1957).

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.