United States v. Johnson (1911)
http://dbpedia.org/resource/United_States_v._Johnson_(1911) an entity of type: Thing
In United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488 (1911), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the misbranding provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 did not pertain to false curative or therapeutic statements but only false statements as to the identity of the drug. any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide or any derivative or preparation of any such substances
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
United States v. Johnson (1911)
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
United States v. Johnson
xsd:integer
23411446
xsd:integer
952724943
rdf:langString
Hughes
rdf:langString
Harlan, Day
rdf:langString
White, McKenna, Lurton, Van Devanter, Lamar
xsd:integer
31
xsd:integer
488
xsd:integer
221
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-13
xsd:integer
1911
rdf:langString
United States v. Johnson,
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-29
xsd:integer
1911
rdf:langString
United States v. Johnson
rdf:langString
The term "misbranded" and the phrase defining what amounts to misbranding in § 8 of the Pure Food and Drug Act are aimed at false statements as to identity of the article, possibly including strength, quality and purity, dealt with in § 7 of the act, and not at statements as to curative effect. A statement on the labels of bottles of medicine that the contents are effective as a cure for cancer, even if misleading, is not covered by the statute.
rdf:langString
United States v. Johnson
rdf:langString
Holmes
rdf:langString
In United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488 (1911), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the misbranding provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 did not pertain to false curative or therapeutic statements but only false statements as to the identity of the drug. In 1912, Congress responded with the Sherley Amendments, which addressed the perceived lack of enforcement of fraud related to therapeutic claims;: The Act was amended to prohibit false and fraudulent claims of health benefits but enforcement under the amendment required proof of fraudulent intent, a difficult standard. The misbranding amendment required a curative or therapeutic product to bear a label with a quantity or proportion statement for specified narcotic substances: any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide or any derivative or preparation of any such substances
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
3528