Connection lost
Server error
UNITED STATES v. DOTTERWEICH Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A corporate president was held criminally liable for his company’s shipment of misbranded drugs under the FDCA, despite his lack of personal knowledge. The Court established that responsible corporate officers can be prosecuted for such public welfare offenses without proof of intent.
Legal Significance: This case established the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine, holding that individuals in positions of authority can be held strictly liable for a corporation’s violations of public welfare statutes, dispensing with the traditional requirement of criminal intent (mens rea).
UNITED STATES v. DOTTERWEICH Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Buffalo Pharmacal Company, Inc., a drug jobber, purchased drugs from manufacturers, repacked them under its own label, and shipped them in interstate commerce. These shipments were later found to violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for being adulterated and misbranded. Joseph Dotterweich was the president and general manager of the corporation. The government brought a criminal prosecution against both the corporation and Dotterweich under the FDCA, which prohibits the introduction of such goods into interstate commerce and makes “any person” who violates the provision guilty of a misdemeanor. At trial, the jury convicted Dotterweich but failed to reach a verdict on the corporation’s guilt. There was no evidence presented that Dotterweich had personal knowledge of the specific shipments’ unlawful nature or that he personally participated in the adulteration or misbranding. His conviction was based on his position of authority and responsibility within the company. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the FDCA’s penalties applied only to the corporation, not its officers, absent personal wrongdoing.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a corporate officer be found guilty of a misdemeanor under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for the corporation’s shipment of adulterated or misbranded goods, even without proof of the officer’s personal awareness of the wrongdoing?
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint o
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can a corporate officer be found guilty of a misdemeanor under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for the corporation’s shipment of adulterated or misbranded goods, even without proof of the officer’s personal awareness of the wrongdoing?
Conclusion
Dotterweich is a landmark case in criminal law that established the "responsible Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim a
Legal Rule
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a public welfare statute, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irur
Legal Analysis
The Court, speaking through Justice Frankfurter, interpreted the Federal Food, Drug, and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat no
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A corporate officer can be held personally liable for violations of