United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could pierce the corporate veil. The defendant, Park, was the CEO of Acme International. Park had failed to comply with a mandate from the FDA, under the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act, to keep conditions within his warehouses legally sanitary.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - United States v. Park (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could pierce the corporate veil. The defendant, Park, was the CEO of Acme International. Park had failed to comply with a mandate from the FDA, under the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act, to keep conditions within his warehouses legally sanitary. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- United States v. Park (en)
|
dct:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| |
docket
| |
JoinDissent
| |
JoinMajority
| - Douglas, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist (en)
|
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - United States v. Park, (en)
|
courtlistener
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
findlaw
| |
fullname
| - United States v. Park (en)
|
Holding
| - Even if there is no affirmative wrongdoing, the manager of a corporation can be prosecuted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - United States v. Park (en)
|
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could pierce the corporate veil. The defendant, Park, was the CEO of Acme International. Park had failed to comply with a mandate from the FDA, under the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act, to keep conditions within his warehouses legally sanitary. In the case, the Court found Park strictly liable for the unsanitary conditions that his company had created, arguing for strict liability under the rationale that the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act was a 'public welfare' statute. The Court concluded that as a welfare statute, the purpose was to prevent egregious social harm; therefore, the Defendant could be held strictly liable for the crime. The Court held that if someone were to willingly be in charge of a company, and therefore its problems, then he or she willingly accepts the consequences of any illegal practices that his or her company or organization is involved in. An exception is made if the problem is impossible to fix. (en)
|
ArgueDateA
| |
ArgueDateB
| |
googlescholar
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |