Ingram v. Tucker

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a state law requiring a 12% .protein content in sausage meat was preempted because, inter alia, federal regulations required only an 11.2% protein content
• holding that the FMIA’s analogous Ingredients Provision preempted a state sausage regulation because it regulated ingredi- ents like cereal, soya binders, milk, and fatty tissue
• explaining the purpose of “ingredient requirements” within the Federal Meat Inspection ¡Act’s (“FMIA”) identical preemption clause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).