*** Welcome to piglix ***

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls
Wisconsin-eastern.png
Court United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Full case name United States
v.
Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls
Decided May 21, 1976 (1976-05-21)
Citation(s) 413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisc. 1976)

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, 413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisc. 1976) is a 1976 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin decision regarding a requested order from the United States government to seize and destroy a shipment of approximately 50,000 clacker balls under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act because children could hit themselves with the balls.

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.

In 1974 in Mequon, Wisconsin, the United States Marshals Service seized a shipment of clacker balls—toys comprising two hard acrylic balls connected by a piece of string—from a dock and published a public notice of the seizure in a local newspaper. Ace Novelty Company in Seattle, Washington, declared an interest in the shipment and filed a complaint against forfeiture. The complaint was that the shipment was not a banned hazard as defined by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA).

The claimant initially stated that the case was titled incorrectly as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission had not been named on the caption. The court dismissed this as without merit, pointing out that Section 9 of the FHSA stated that all proceedings regarding enforcement would be done in the name of the United States.

The claimant then stated that the law had been applied unconstitutionally by breaching the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the right of "due powers". The judge stated that he was unsure of the intent of this defense as it was not initially filed in the summary judgement and thus the court was unable to make a ruling on it.


...
Wikipedia

...