Ferguson v. Arthur’s Empirical Analysis
117 U.S. 482 · 1886
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1962 · most notably Franklin Tp. in Somerset County v. Tugwell (1936), State v. Wakeen (1953)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Improvement Company v. Munson · United States v. Steffens · Randall v. Baltimore O R · Pleasants v. Fant · Manufacturing Co. v. Trainer
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Henry’s Calcined Magnesia. It has been prepared by tie same family, a firm of manufacturing chemists in Manchester, England, for the last one hundred years, and has a peculiar value in the market. That the article 3d question is a medicinal preparation there can be no doubt. The circular sets forth its virtues as a remedy in disease, and calls it a “medicine. It has a character of its own, distinct from the ordinary calcined magnesia, which must arise from the special mode of manufacture. Henry’s article is not the ordinary calcined magnesia, dutiable by the pound, but something is done to that ordinary calcined magnesia by the Henrys which, in connection with the manner in which it is put up and sent forth, makes it a proprietary medicine, although the base of it is magnesia calcined. Hoff’s Halt Extract. It has been prepared by the same family, a firm of manufacturing chemists in Berlin, Germany, for the last twenty-five years, and over, and has a peculiar value in the market. That the Hoff extract is a medicinal preparation there can be no doubt. 'The circulars and labels set forth its virtues as a remedy in disease, call it a “medicine, ” and recommend that it should be taken under the advice of a physician. It has a character of its own, distinct from the ordinary malt extract, which arises from the special mode of manufacture and from the fact that only twelve per cent, of malt is used. Hoff’s article is not the ordinary malt extract dutiable by the gallon, but somethin”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Eisner“It is quite plain, we think, that Thomas and William Henry recommended their calcined magnesia to the public as a medicine in which they had a proprietary right, as owning all that there was of good will and business reputation appurtenant to the article resulting from its name and from what they stated about its manufacture.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Heron“Thus a medicinal preparation might be proprietary, without being made by a private formula, or under an exclusive right claimed to the making or preparing it, or under a patent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Heron
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.