UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DIAPULSE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ALSO KNOWN AS THE DIAPULSE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the injunction was properly modified to cover devices held by practitioners and that the inspectional authority granted was not exceeded.
Diapulse Corporation appealed a permanent injunction modifying a prior one that prohibited interstate shipment of a misbranded device. The corporation…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interstate Shipment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Diapulse Corporation of America has appealed from a permanent injunction, issued on January 18, 1974, which modified a two-year old injunction prohibiting interstate shipment of a misbranded device known as “the Diapulse.” 1 We find little merit to the Corporation’s claim that Judge Dooling was without authority to amend the decree rendered by Judge Rosling on July 18, 1972. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 88 S.Ct. 1496, 20 L.Ed.2d 562 (1968). The contention that the injunction was improperly extended to cover devices held by practitioners is also without merit. Such devices, used in the treatment of patients, may properly be considered “held for sale” within the meaning of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 331(k). United States v. Device Labeled “Cameron Spitler, Etc.”, 261 F. Supp. 243, 246 (D.Neb.1966); United States v. 10 Cartons, Etc., 152 F.Supp. 360, 364-65 (W.D.Pa.1957).
Finally, we reject the suggestion that the injunction exceeds the inspectional authority provided by the Act, by extending to all things “(including records, files, papers, processes and facilities) bearing on whether any prohibited devices have been or are being manufactured, assembled, processed, packed, transported, or held in such place.” Aside from the propriety of the provision in light of the history of non-compliance with the 1972 decree, the specification of such authority with respect to prescription drugs, added by the 1962 amendments, Drug Amendments of 1962, Pub.L.No. 87-781, Title II, § 201(a) (Oct. 10, 1962), 76 Stat. 792, was not intended “to detract from, or imply the absence of, existing authority as to other drugs or articles subject to the act.” 1962 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 2889.
We find the appellant’s other contentions insubstantial.
Affirmed.
. For some of the earlier history of this continuing litigation, see United States v. Diapulse Manufacturing Corp., 269 F.Supp. 162 (D.Conn.1967), aff’d, 389 F. 2d 612 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 907, 88 S.Ct. 2059, 20 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1968); United States v. Diapulse Corp. of America, 457 F. 2d 25 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v. Diapulse Corp. of America, 485 F. 2d 677 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 938, 94 S.Ct. 1938, 40 L.Ed.2d 288 (1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Evers, 643 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. 1981)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1968)
- United States v. Diapulse Corp. OF Am., 457 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1972)
- An Article of Device . . . Diapulse Mfg. Corp. of Am. v. United States, 392 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1968)
- RePass v. Vreeland, 392 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1968)
- Caldwell v. United States, 416 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1974)
- Diapulse Corp. of Am. v. United States, 416 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1974)
- United States v. An Article of Device . . . Diapulse Mfg. Corp. OF Am., 389 F.2d 612 (2d Cir. 1968)