Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/98186/united-states-vs-urbuteit
Timestamp: 2018-02-19 20:18:35
Document Index: 552312842

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 304', '§ 334', '§ 304', '§ 334', '§ 304', '§ 301']

United States Vs Urbuteit - Citation 98186 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
United States Vs. Urbuteit - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/98186
Case Number 335 U.S. 355
Respondent Urbuteit
united states v. urbuteit - 335 u.s. 355 (1948) u.s. supreme court united states v. urbuteit, 335 u.s. 355 (1948) united states v. urbuteit no. 13 argued october 13-14, 1948 decided november 22, 1948 335 u.s. 355 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit syllabus certain machines bearing no labeling other than name and serial number were shipped in interstate commerce. subsequently, but as a part of the same transaction, there were shipped to the same consignee certain leaflets containing allegedly false and misleading statements relative to the value of the machines in the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and cure of disease. these leaflets were used by the consignee in explaining the.....
United States v. Urbuteit - 335 U.S. 355 (1948)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Urbuteit, 335 U.S. 355 (1948)
Held: the separate shipment of the machines and leaflets did not prevent the machines from being subject to condemnation under § 304(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1044, 21 U.S.C. § 334, as devices "misbranded when introduced into" interstate commerce. Kordel v. United States, ante, p. 335 U. S. 345 . Pp. 335 U. S. 355 -358.
A federal district court ordered certain machines condemned under § 304(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1044, 21 U.S.C. § 334. The Court of Appeals reversed. 164 F.2d 245. This Court granted certiorari. 333 U.S. 872. Reversed, p. 335 U. S. 358 .
Respondent, Fred Urbuteit, appeared as claimant of several of the devices. He admitted that the devices and leaflets had been shipped in interstate commerce, but denied that they were shipped together, or that they were related to each other. He also denied that the statements made in the leaflet were false or misleading. The case was tried without a jury, and the articles were ordered condemned. The judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals. 164 F.2d 245. The case is here on certiorari to resolve the conflict between it and Kordel v. United States, ante, p. 335 U. S. 345 .
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, and MR. JUSTICE JACKSON dissent for the reasons stated in their dissent in Kordel v. United States, ante, p. 335 U. S. 345 , although this case arises under the limitation of § 304(a), "while in interstate commerce," which has a different scope from § 301(k), while "held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce."