United States v. El-O-Pathic Pharmacy
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
192 F.2d 62 (1951)
- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
El-O-Pathic Pharmacy (defendant) received hormones from manufacturers with labels that stated “Caution: To be dispensed only by or on the prescription of a physician.” El-O-Pathic relabeled the drugs with a label that stated “a physician should be consulted” before use. The Food and Drug Administration sued El-O-Pathic, claiming that the new labels caused the drugs to be misbranded. The district court ruled in El-O-Pathic’s favor, finding that the new warning label was sufficient. The government appealed, arguing that the new label did not constitute adequate directions for the drug’s use because the drug’s use was dangerous, complicated, and required a physician’s supervision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McAllister, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
