Johnson & Johnson v. Herold’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(10) The following articles are each and all purely mechanical in their purpose and operation and are not medicinal articles or preparations: Finger hats; Dr. Don’s corn plasters; Dr. Don’s bunion plasters.” “(12) That ‘Papoid Powder’ and ‘Papoid Tablets,’ in class G, are the simple drug papain, the purified juice of the carica papaya (alone and with an excipient, which is purely mechanical and not medicinal, respectively), and are-uncompounded drugs.” “(It) That, with the exception of the articles mentioned in findings 5 and 9 as withdrawn, in finding 6 [should be 10] as mechanical and not medicinal, and the ‘Itheumatic Plaster’ in class E, and that ‘Belladonna Plaster’ in class H which bears the word ‘Johnson’s,’ and the papain preparations in class 6, all the articles involved in these actions are in fact: “(a) Not plasters wherein the person making or preparing the same has or claims to have any private formula, secret or occult art, for the making or preparing the same, or has or claims to have an exclusive right or title to the making or preparing the same. On the contrary, they are manufactured and prepared according to formulas taken from the United States or National Dispensatory or the British Phaimaccepia, all well-known publications of accepted authority, and are standard medical preparations recognized and constantly prescribed by the medical profession, the merits of which are discussed in medical text-books and journals, and are the same plasters made accordin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rutan v. Johnson & Johnson

2. “•\T) In tlio actions above mentioned, heretofore litigated and determined between the parties hereto, tills court entered final judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendants under the identical circumstances under which payment was made herein, and as part of the same transaction for stamps affixed and canceled upon certain plasters, which in every respect were identical with the. plasters involved in the action now before the court, designated ‘Class B,’ which actions determined the following questions: “(a) That the payments were not voluntary. “(b) That the plaintiff has not and does not claim to have any exclusive-right or title to the making or preparing the plasters. That the plasters are not prepared, uttered, vended, or exposed for sale under any letters patent or tiade-mark, or held out or recommended to the public by the plaintiff as proprietary medicines, or medicinal proprietary articles or preparations, or as-remedies or specifics for any disease, diseases, or affections whatever affecting the human or animal body, or put up in style or manner, similai; to that of patent, trade-mark, or proprietary medicines in general, or advertised on-, the package or otherwise as remedies or specifics for any ailment or as having any special claim to merit or to any peculiar advantage in mode of preparation, quality, use, or effect. “(c) That the use of plaintiff’s trade-mark as it is used on said plasters did not render”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rutan v. Johnson & Johnson

3. “"That between the 1st day of July, 1898, and the 1st day of July, 1901, the plaintiff purchased large quantities of internal -revenue stamps fro-m the said defendants—purchases made between July 1, 1898, and March 1, 1899, being made from the defendant William D. Eutan, and during the balance of said period from the defendant Herman O. H. Herold. A part of- the stamps purchased during- the whole period were affixed on the articles mentioned in said declarations and canceled, such stamps being so affixed and canceled under rulings of the said defendants and the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue of the United States that such articles were subject to a tax under the provisions of the act referred to, and the sums so paid for said infernal revenue stamps by the plaintiff to the defendants were paid under protest and on threat of distress and confiscation in case of refusal and not voluntarily. For the sums thus paid, claims were duly presented by the plaintiff and disallowed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rutan v. Johnson & Johnson