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

A fact from United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 February 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the United States Government brought 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness to court?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Longest title ever?.

Wikipedia

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notes[edit]

References to find: Journal of the American Medical Association 120:474, 1942

Left in the dark[edit]

Its unusual name is in part due to the customs of cases with in rem jurisdiction. No further explication is offered. so, what is the custom of cases with in rem jurisdiction? And what's connection between that and the title?--Wetman (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that does deserve a better explanation and phrasing, although the wikilink does provide context, the article should as well. I'll give the right wording some thought today and take a stab at it tonight. (More or less, "in rem" cases are cases "against the thing", in other words, you have the strange-sounding effect of having one of the litigants be an object, such as 11 1/4 dozen packages, or "One Package of Japanese Pessaries", or "Thirty-seven Photographs", or the ever-popular "Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins". Any case which seems to be a person or a government "against a thing', tends to sound odd to most readers, e.g., "California v. Table Lamp". (Oddly enough, that's the only example here I made up.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is also quite interesting for us laymen, ignorant as we are of legal matters.I grant that the greatest interest is for those with legal training, but laymen would like to know why this was brought to court and the resulting effect, beyond humour. Did it set precedent, or have the product removed from market, or some effect on the manufacturer or marketer? Surly no punishment was given to the 135 packages.184.151.190.5 (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article did set a significant precedent about the FFDCA, which essentially established the FDA--I believe that's in the article. It in part set out the scope of how much enforcement power the FDA had over bogus medicines. It was never entirely clear to me what if anything they were able to do about the manufacturer (who might have been hard to nail down), which would explain why this was a lawsuit against some packages, rather than the product manufacturer. In any case, I've done what I can with the sources I was able to find, if you can improve the article, please do!!!! --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,as a layman that clears it up for me. Very interesting.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.106 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]