United States v. Dotterweich

Supreme Court of the United States · 1943 · Criminal Law

320 U.S. 277 (1943)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawstrict liabilityresponsible corporate officerFDCAmisdemeanormisbrandingadulterationinterstate commerce

Facts

Buffalo Pharmacal Company, a drug jobber, bought drugs from manufacturers and shipped them in interstate commerce after repacking them under its own label. Two consolidated informations charged both the company and Dotterweich, its president and general manager, with violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act based on two shipments of misbranded drugs and one shipment of an adulterated drug. The jury disagreed as to the corporation but found Dotterweich guilty on all three counts. The court proceeded on the basis that the evidence was sufficient to support findings of adulteration and misbranding.

Issue

Whether, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a corporate officer may be convicted as a "person" for introducing or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded drugs when the corporation is the shipper. Also, whether the Act's guaranty provision limits criminal liability to the proprietor who would ordinarily receive the guaranty.

Rule

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the misdemeanor prohibition against introducing or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded drugs applies not only to corporations but also to individuals who, though acting for the corporation, have a responsible share in the furtherance of the forbidden transaction. The Act is a public-welfare measure that dispenses with the conventional requirement of awareness of wrongdoing and places the risk on those standing in responsible relation to the public danger, unless the enterprise enjoys the immunity of a statutory guaranty.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Mesa Therapeutics, a drug wholesaler in Phoenix, buys tablets from manufacturers, repackages them under its own label, and ships them to pharmacies in Nevada. Priya Desai, the company's distribution director, approves outbound shipments and oversees labeling compliance, but she never learns that one batch is misbranded.

If Priya is prosecuted for the interstate shipment, which is the strongest argument for conviction?

Explanation. The majority treated the statute as a public-welfare measure that dispenses with the conventional requirement of consciousness of wrongdoing. Liability reaches individuals acting for the corporation who have a responsible share in the furtherance of the forbidden transaction—putting adulterated or misbranded drugs into interstate commerce.