Stanley v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Stanley v. United States

111 F.2d 898, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3808

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 9, 1940

DocketNo. 8173

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 111 F.2d 898 (Stanley v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stanley v. United States, 111 F.2d 898, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3808 (6th Cir. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon appeal from a judgment rendered against the appellant for misbranding articles in violation of Section 8 of the Pure Food and Drugs Law, 21 U.S.C.A. § 10.

It appearing from the stipulation of facts that the articles sought to be condemned are the identical articles that formed the basis of an indictment against the appellant in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in which court the indictment was, upon demurrer, dismissed because showing on its face that the statements, designs or devices alleged to have been borne by the packages were not statements of curative or therapeutic effect within the language of the statute, in consequence of which the indictment was held not to state an offense against the United States, and it being the view of the court that the decision in the District Court of Illinois is res judicata of present issues, the decision there being upon the merits with respect to the charge of misbranding, it is hereby ordered that the judgment below be and it is hereby reversed. United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85, 87, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161, 3 A.L.R. 516; United States v. Barber, 219 U.S. 72, 31 S.Ct. 209, 55 L.Ed. 99; Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 445, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684. To the same effect is United States v. 119 Packages, etc., D.C.N.Y., 15 F.Supp. 327. The cause is remanded for new trial in conformity herewith.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon appeal from a judgment rendered against the appellant for misbranding articles in violation of Section 8 of the Pure Food and Drugs Law, 21 U.S.C.A. § 10.

It appearing from the stipulation of facts that the articles sought to be condemned are the identical articles that formed the basis of an indictment against the appellant in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in which court the indictment was, upon demurrer, dismissed because showing on its face that the statements, designs or devices alleged to have been borne by the packages were not statements of curative or therapeutic effect within the language of the statute, in consequence of which the indictment was held not to state an offense against the United States, and it being the view of the court that the decision in the District Court of Illinois is res judicata of present issues, the decision there being upon the merits with respect to the charge of misbranding, it is hereby ordered that the judgment below be and it is hereby reversed. United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85, 87, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161, 3 A.L.R. 516; United States v. Barber, 219 U.S. 72, 31 S.Ct. 209, 55 L.Ed. 99; Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 445, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684. To the same effect is United States v. 119 Packages, etc., D.C.N.Y., 15 F.Supp. 327. The cause is remanded for new trial in conformity herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F.2d 898, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-united-states-ca6-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack