Pike v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 66-1525(c) “ * * * nothing in this act shall prevent the sale of common household preparations and other drugs, provided stores selling same are licensed under the terms of this act.” § 66-1508 (a) “The state board of pharmacy shall upon application upon such forms as it may prescribe, and upon the payment of an annual fee of three dollars ($3.00), license pharmacies and stores other than a pharmacy wherein may be sold ordinary household or medicinal drugs prepared in sealed packages or bottles by a manufacturer, qualified under the laws of the state wherein such manufacturer resides. The name and address of such manufacturer shall appear conspicuously on each package sold by such licensee. It shall be unlawful for any such store to sell such household medicinal drugs, without first having secured such license and thereafter keeping' the same in force by proper renewal, provided, also, that nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any vendor from selling any patent or proprietary medicine in the original package when plainly labeled, nor such non medical articles as are usually sold by such vendors.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Collins

2. ““Hence it is clear that plaintiffs holding a license under the Act in question had the right to sell everything which they do sell even though the store is not in charge of a registered pharmacist. “Can they be deprived of the use of the name ‘drug’ in advertising their business? We think not, because we believe the means employed by the legislature, viz., the attempt to prevent the use of the name ‘drug’ in its advertising has no reasonable relation to the public health or safety but tends merely to create a monopoly in the sale of drugs. “It attempts to give to registered pharmacists the right to sell the drugs in question by the use of the word ‘drug’ in advertising and excludes that right from every other person. It makes no requirement that the registered pharmacists who may use the name and sell the drugs make any analysis, inspection or examination of the drug to be passed on by him to the purchasing public.” 253 P.2d at page 1056 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Collins

3. ““Use of words ‘drug store,’ ‘pharmacy,’ etc. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry on, conduct or transact a retail business under a name which contains as a part thereof, the words, ‘drugs,’ ‘drug store,’ ‘pharmacy,’ ‘medicine,’ ‘apothecary,’ or 'chemist shop,’ or any abbreviations, translations, extension or variation thereof; or in any ■ manner by advertisement circular or poster, sign or otherwise, describe or refer to the place of business conducted by such person by such term, abbreviations, translation, extension or variation unless the place so conducted is a pharmacy within the meaning of this act, and duly licensed as such and in charge of a registered pharmacist.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Collins