Borden Co. v. Freeman

Third Circuit

Borden Co. v. Freeman

369 F.2d 404

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 29, 1966

DocketNo. 16166

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 369 F.2d 404 (Borden Co. v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borden Co. v. Freeman, 369 F.2d 404 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

In the instant case the Borden Company sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of certain regulations promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, under the authority of the Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 451 et seq., with relation to the labeling of its products, dehydrated chicken noodle soup mix and dehydrated chicken rice soup mix.

The District Court rejected the Borden Company’s contention that the Regulations were not supported by substantial evidence and were arbitrary. It further held that the defendant Secretary of Agriculture had authority to promulgate the Regulations. The Borden Company appealed from the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in the Secretary’s favor.

On review of the record we find no error. The Order and Judgment of the District Court entered July 13, 1966 will be affirmed on the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Lane. 256 F.Supp. 592 (1966).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

In the instant case the Borden Company sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of certain regulations promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, under the authority of the Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 451 et seq., with relation to the labeling of its products, dehydrated chicken noodle soup mix and dehydrated chicken rice soup mix.

The District Court rejected the Borden Company’s contention that the Regulations were not supported by substantial evidence and were arbitrary. It further held that the defendant Secretary of Agriculture had authority to promulgate the Regulations. The Borden Company appealed from the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in the Secretary’s favor.

On review of the record we find no error. The Order and Judgment of the District Court entered July 13, 1966 will be affirmed on the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Lane. 256 F.Supp. 592 (1966).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 F.2d 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borden-co-v-freeman-ca3-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack