UNITED STATES v. URBUTEIT.
No. 640.
Decided May 2, 1949.
Solicitor General Perlman for the United States.
H. O. Pemberton for respondent.
Per Curiam.
The question presented by this petition is whether the Court of Appeals followed our mandate on remand of the cause in 335 U. S. 355.
The case when it was here earlier this Term appeared in the following posture:
A condemnation proceeding was instituted by the United States under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (52 Stat. 1040, 1044, 21 U. S. C. § 334). Sixteen machines with alleged diagnostic and curative capabilities had been shipped in interstate commerce. Leaflets describing the uses of the machine had been shipped at a separate time. The Court of Appeals had held that the separate shipments of the machines and leaflets precluded a conclusion that the leaflets had accompanied the device in interstate commerce, and therefore the transaction was outside the reach of the Act. We reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the separate shipment of the machines and leaflets constituted a single interrelated activity.
On remand the Court of Appeals concluded that because there were several shipments of machines and a single shipment of advertising matter, it was not clear which shipments might be considered a single interrelated activity. Therefore, it remanded the case to the District Court for a determination of this fact. 172 F. 2d 386.
When the case was here before, we decided that the fact of separate shipments of machines and leaflets was immaterial. The controlling factors were whether the leaflets were designed for use with the machine and whether they were so used. Since the function of the leaflets and the purpose of their shipment were established, nothing more was needed to show that the movements of the machines and leaflets constituted a single interrelated activity. Moreover, the case is not complicated by shipments of machines and leaflets to different persons. One Kelsch was the recipient of both.
On remand the Court of Appeals adhered to its former ruling that the District Court erroneously excluded evidence as to the therapeutic or curative value of the machines. When the case was here before we did not disturb that ruling. But we did leave to the Court of Appeals for consideration a further question — whether the evidence as respects the falsity of the representations regarding the diagnostic capabilities of the machines was adequate to sustain the condemnation even though error in exclusion of the other evidence were conceded. The United States is entitled to a hearing on that question.
The petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment is
Reversed.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.