Rothmaher v. Wragg

How courts have described this case

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

• governmental seizure of \misbranded\ machine under Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act without prior notice or hearing did not violate due process
• seizure may be challenged through motion to quash, motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment
• \A defendant cannot contend that he did not obtain a prompt hearing when he chose not to avail himself of an opportunity to present his claim.\
• where a disciplinary committee writes “resident admits he committed the act charged,” it has provided a Constitutionally sufficient statement of facts relied on
• governmental seizure of “misbrand-ed” machine under Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act without prior notice or hearing did not violate due process
• “A defendant cannot con tend that he did not obtain a prompt hearing when he chose not to avail himself of an opportunity to present his claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).