• Facets (new session)
• Description
• Metadata
• Settings
  • Rule: ActivityStreamsMapasEquivalentb3sb3sifpdbprdf-labelfacetshttp://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/dbpedia#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/opencyc#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/umbel#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/yago#http://dbpedia.org/schema/property_rules#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/SUMO#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/WordNet#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ldpoplwebskos-transurn:det:rdf:labelvirtrdf-labelvirtrdf-urlNone
    
  • Inverse Functional Properties: Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects
  • "Same As": Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects (recommended) Apply to subjects, objects and predicates (not recommended on big datasets) Apply to predicates only (special use cases only)

About: 62 Cases of Jam v. United States     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : umbel-rc:Event, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)

Type: ThingcaseLegal Caseunit of workLegal caseyago:WikicatCounterfeitConsumerGoodsyago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesyago:Abstraction100002137yago:Advantage105155821yago:Asset105154517yago:Attribute100024264yago:Case107308889yago:Event100029378yago:Good105159725yago:Happening107283608yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100yago:Quality104723816yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntitySupreme Court of the United States caseumbel-rc:Event New Facet based on Instances of this Class

62 Cases of Jam v. United States, 340 U.S. 593 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "imitation jam," so labeled, was not a "misbranded" product under § 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. § 343, even though it did not meet federal regulations for being fruit jam. The form of the styling of this case — the defendant being an object, rather than a legal person — is because this is a jurisdiction in rem (power over objects) case, rather than the more familiar in personam (over persons) case.