Hygrade Provision Co., Inc. v. Sherman, Atty. Gen. Of New York Lewis & Fox Co. v. Same. Satz v. Same

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding the term \kosher\ did not render statute void-for-vagueness where statute contained requirement of specific intent and the term \kosher\ had a meaning well enough defined by sources outside the statute to enable one engaged in the trade to correctly apply it
• when penal statute is directed towards particular profession, the meaning of the statutory language should be interpreted as would one engaged in this profession
• “[T]he term ‘kosher’ has a meaning well enough defined to enable one engaged in the trade to correctly apply it, at least as a general thing.”
• when penal statute is directed towards particular profession, the meaning of the statutory language should be interpreted as would one engaged in this profession
• “since the statutes require a specific intent to defraud in order to encounter their prohibitions, the hazard of prosecution which appellants fear loses whatever substantial foundation it might have in the absence of such a requirement.”
• “‘The purpose of the statute, manifestly, is to prevent and punish fraud____’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).