United States v. Safeway Stores, 15471.

Decision Date23 January 1958
Docket NumberNo. 15471.,15471.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. SAFEWAY STORES, Inc., a corporation, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Lloyd F. Dunn, Peter Jay Hughes, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Julian O. Von Kalinowski, John L. Endicott, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and CHASE A. CLARK, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The indictment here is one brought under Title 21 U.S.C.A. Section 78, charging the defendant, in two counts, with unlawful transportation of a quantity of meat food products of cattle and swine from a warehouse in Los Angeles, California, to the Safeway store in Las Vegas, Nevada, which products had not been inspected, examined and marked "Inspected and passed" as required by law.

Section 78, Title 21, provides:

"No person, firm, or corporation shall transport or offer for transportation, and no carrier of interstate or foreign commerce shall transport or receive for transportation from one State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or to any place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or to any foreign country, any carcasses or parts thereof, meat, or meat food products thereof which have not been inspected, examined and marked as `Inspected and passed,\' in accordance with the terms of sections 71 to 94, inclusive, of this title, and with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture."

Safeway Stores moved to dismiss on two basic grounds: (1) that the indictment did not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States in that "it affirmatively appears on its face that defendant comes within the exception to the statute upon which the alleged offense is based, exempting retail dealers in meat and meat products supplying their customers"; and (2) that the indictment does not sufficiently inform the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation in that "It fails to specifically allege that defendant does not come within the statutory exception exempting retail dealers in meat and meat products supplying their customers", and "It does not appear thereon whether Safeway Stores, Inc., is being charged as a retail dealer in meat and meat products supplying its customers, with the offense created by the statute or otherwise".

The exception exempting retail dealers to which the defendant refers is found at 21 U.S.C.A. § 91, as follows:

"A `retail dealer\' means any person, partnership, association, or corporation chiefly engaged in selling meat or meat food products to consumers only except that the Secretary of Agriculture, at his discretion, may permit any retail dealer to transport in interstate trade or foreign commerce to consumers and meat retailers in any one week not more than five carcasses of cattle, twenty-five carcasses of calves, twenty carcasses of sheep, twenty-five carcasses of lambs, ten carcasses of swine, twenty carcasses of goats, or twenty-five carcasses of goat kids, or the equivalent of fresh meat therefrom, and to transport in interstate or foreign commerce to consumers only meat and meat food products which have been salted, cured, canned, or prepared as sausage, lard, or other meat food products which have not been inspected, examined, and marked as `Inspected and Passed\' in accordance with the terms of sections 71-91 of this title, and Acts supplemental thereto, and with the rules and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • United Scottish Ins. Co. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 29, 1979
    ...the reasoning provides some support for what we conclude to be the correct analysis or result. See United States v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 252 F.2d 99, 101 (9th Cir. 1958) (per curiam). That Rapp is no longer case authority in no way undermines the precedential value of Arney in this The gov......
  • United States v. UNDETERMINED QUANTITIES OF D. OR S. DRUGS, 68-12-Civ-CA.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • February 7, 1968
    ...260 U.S. 353, 43 S.Ct. 132, 67 L.Ed. 301 (1922); Williams v. United States, 292 F.2d 157 (8th Cir. 1961); United States v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 252 F.2d 99 (9th Cir. 1958); Welch v. Hudspeth, 132 F.2d 434 (10th Cir. 1942); Knight v. Hudspeth, 112 F.2d 137 (10th Cir. 1940); Nicoli v. Briggs......
  • United States v. White
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 16, 1972
    ...States, 421 F.2d 928 (10th Cir.1970); United States v. Rowlette, 397 F.2d 475, 479 (7th Cir.1968). Cf. also, United States v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 252 F.2d 99, 101 (9th Cir.1958); United States v. Young, 422 F.2d 302, 306, n. 11 (8th 6. Finally, Alexander asserts that the evidence adduced ......
  • United States v. Reiff, 18148.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 1, 1971
    ...U.S.C.A. § 360a(b), and citing McKelvey v. United States, 260 U.S. 353, 357, 43 S.Ct. 132, 67 L.Ed. 301 (1922); United States v. Safeway Stores, 9 Cir., 252 F.2d 99, 101 (1958); and United States v. Davis, 7 Cir., 281 F.2d 93, 97 (1960) convincingly answers the contention here that the gove......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT