Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-19-1948
united states v. sullivan - 332 u.s. 689 (1948) u.s. supreme court united states v. sullivan, 332 u.s. 689 (1948) united states v. sullivan no. 121 argued december 9, 1947 decided january 19, 1948 332 u.s. 689 certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the fifth circuit syllabus 1. it is a violation of 301(k) of the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act of 1938 for a retail druggist who has purchased sulfathiazole tablets from a wholesaler in the same state (who had obtained them by way of an interstate shipment) to remove a dozen of them from a properly labeled bulk container in which they were shipped in interstate commerce and in which they were being held for resale, place them in a pill box labeled "sulfathiazole" but not containing the statutorily required directions for use or warnings of danger, and sell them locally to a retail purchaser. pp. 332 u. s. 695 -697. (a) the removal of drugs from a container labeled in accordance with the requirements of the act to one not so labeled is the doing of an act which results in their being "misbranded" within the meaning of 301(k). p. 332 u. s. 695 . (b) although a previous intrastate sale had occurred following the interstate shipment, and although the retail sale in question occurred over six months after completion of the shipment in interstate commerce, the sulfathiazole tablets in this case were "held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce" within the meaning of 301(k). pp. 332 u. s. 695 -696. (c) the purpose .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-12-1948
..... release violates 5 of the federal employers' liability act, which provides that any contract to enable any common carrier to "exempt itself from any liability created by this chapter page 332 u. s. 631 shall to that extent be void." 35 stat. 66, 45 ..... statutory plan, the releases of railroad employees stand on the same basis as the releases of others. one who attacks a settlement must bear the burden of showing that the contract he has made is tainted with invalidity, either by fraud practiced upon him or by a mutual mistake under which both parties acted. the plaintiff has also contended that this ..... that the burden should not be on one who attacks a release, to show grounds of mutual mistake or fraud, but should rest upon the one who pleads such a contract, to prove the absence of those grounds. it page 332 u. s. 630 is not contended that this is or ever has been the law; rather, it is contended that ..... its validity on the ground of fraud or mutual mistake, the burden is on the employee to show that the contract was invalid. pp. 332 u. s. 629 -630. 3. section 5 of the federal employers' liability act, providing that any contract to enable any common carrier to "exempt itself from any liability created by this chapter shall to that extent be .....Tag this Judgment!