kegz.net
Contact me ·  Browse archives ·  Search this site:  

Friday · November 05 2004

A list of cases heard in U.S. civil and criminal courts, published in the October 24, 2004, issue of the ABA Journal eReport, the online magazine of the American Bar Association
Steve needs to Lexis-Nexis some of these for us.

What you had to say:
November 06 2004

Here's a couple, I can post more later if anyone has interest, just post which one you want!

I AM THE BEAST SIX SIX SIX V. MICHIGAN STATE POLICE:

Some facts:
Plaintiff calls himself "I AM THE BEAST SIX SIX SIX OF THE LORD OF HOSTS IN EDMOND FRANK MACGILLIVRAY JR NOW. I AM THE BEAST SIX SIX SIX OF THE LORD OF HOSTS IEFMJN. I AM THE BEAST SIX SIX SIX OF THE LORD OF HOSTS. I AM THE BEAST SIX SIX SIX OTLOHIEFMJN. I AM THE BEAST SSSOTLOHIEFMJN. I AM THE BEAST SIX SIX SIX. BEAST SIX SIX SIX LORD." In his complaint, plaintiff makes over sixty (60) allegations that he has endured various violations of his civil rights in a series of incidents arising out of "a peaceful non demonstration demonstration" in the city of Lansing, Michigan.
Plaintiff has renounced his given name, Edmond Frank MacGillivray, Jr. See Complaint, at 2 (Oct. 13, 1989). For brevity, all references to plaintiff's current name will be shortened to "I am the Beast".

Overview/Result:
The arrestee engaged in a demonstration on the steps of the state capitol building. He alleged that his subsequent arrest and confinement violated his civil rights because he was threatened, denied an attorney, deprived of food, sleep, and warmth, and subjected to deplorable jail conditions. The arrestee brought a 42 U.S.C.S. 1983 action seeking monetary damages for the alleged constitutional violations. The court granted the county jail's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the arrestee's action because pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17, the county jail was not a legal entity which could be sued in its own name. The court also granted the city police's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for a judgment on the pleadings for the same reason. Finally, the court granted the state, state police, and state court's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(B)(6) motions to dismiss the arrestee's action because U.S. Const. amend. XI barred federal court actions against a state by a citizen of that state. Moreover, the state was not a "person" for purposes of 42 U.S.C.S. 1983.

My thoughts:
Okay, so this got dismissed since The Beast: 1. didn't really provide a cause of action and 2. didn't provide an issue of material fact, and the issue could be resolved as a matter of law. Sucks for the Beast, but it sounds like his complaint really didn't have alot to it since The Beasts' observations were a bit far from reality. Interesting note: In compensation, he asks for the sum of $ 1,998,000,000 U.S. dollars. In the court footnote next to this compensation: This compensation would allow him to "hire and provide himself a military that he may enter. A Private Military."

United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Article Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly Powders for Drunkenness

This is a case from 1941.

Overview/result:
A drug maker marketed antimony and potassium tartrate as a cure for drunkenness under the name "Mrs. Moffat's, Shoo Fly Powders, For Drunkenness." In entering judgment for the United States, the court granted great weight to five expert physicians who testified that antimony and potassium tartrate did not cure drunkenness, should not be used for that reason, and ingesting the product as recommended on the label was dangerous to health. The court held that the United States was entitled to an order adjudging and decreeing the drug product condemned because it was mislabeled under both of 21 U.S.C.S. 352(a) and 21 U.S.C.S 352(j). The court held that antimony and potassium tartrate in the recommended dosage was not a "cure, mitigation or treatment" for drunkenness as purported on the label.

Interesting note from the case (argument by the inventor/claimant):
The only evidence offered by the intervenor was that given by an official of the claimant to the effect that the powders in question have been sold for upwards of 60 years; that over 50,000 of the powder packages have been sold yearly for the last ten years and that not a single case of harm or injury had ever been reported by any one to the manufacturers. Objection was raised to the reception of all this testimony. It was received subject to be stricken, if the court later so decided. It is believed that the testimony as to the number of packages of the powder that had been sold and the period of years over which it had been sold is competent and the ruling as made stands. However, the testimony that no complaints had been received is incompetent. It is clearly hearsay.

Package label:
Mrs. Moffat's, Shoo Fly Powders, For Drunkenness
6 Powders -- 18 GM. Each
Antimony & Potassium Tartrate
In Use 60 Years
Use according to directions
M.F. Groves' Son & Co., Since 1832, 803 South Front Street Philad'a, Pa., Sold to Druggists only, Price, 50 Cents a Box
19574 E
Nov 14 1940
Directions. -- One of the Powders may be given in Beer, Coffee, Tea or any other liquid.

Never give more than one Powder a day. These powders are intended to be used by adults only, and should be kept from children."

Basically, the powder caused you to throw up, as it irritated the stomach and intestines. This was their "cure" for drunkeness. In response, the court stated, "The conclusion here is inescapable both that the label in question is false and misleading and that the drug is dangerous to health when used in the dosage prescribed on the label. While it may seem that the use of this emetic in some amount may be beneficial in cases of drunkenness because of the fact that it clears the stomach, the fact is that alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream within twenty minutes to half an hour after being taken into the stomach and, therefore, the emetic could not usually affect the action of the alcohol."

That's all the case summaries for now.

November 06 2004

I can gather a guess at most of these, but I have to know more about Chicken Little v Henny Penny

© 2004 Jason Keglovitz