NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
176 F.3d 151 (1999)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
NutraSweet Co. (plaintiff) produced Equal, a sugar substitute. NutraSweet sold several containers of Equal worth $1.5 million to Vit-Mar Enterprises, Inc. (Vit-Mar) (defendant) and another company for distribution in Ukraine and Russia only. NutraSweet shipped the Equal in a manner intended to restrict distribution to Ukraine and Russia. Nevertheless, at one point thereafter, NutraSweet learned that U.S. Customs was preparing to release a shipment of the Equal back into the United States. NutraSweet sued Vit-Mar to recover the shipment of Equal. The district court issued a writ of replevin and temporary restraining order (TRO) in NutraSweet’s favor, NutraSweet posted a $329,000 bond, and the U.S. Marshals seized the Equal. Tekstilschik (Tek) (defendant), which claimed to own the seized Equal, intervened in the case and appealed. On appeal, the district court’s TRO was reversed based on a lack of sufficient factual findings. On remand, the district court vacated the TRO, made additional findings, and issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Tek from possessing or distributing the Equal. The court declined to vacate its previously issued writ of replevin, instead modifying the writ to allow NutraSweet to take possession of the seized Equal. NutraSweet doubled its bond. Tek appealed the district court’s preliminary injunction and writ of replevin.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Magill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
