Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 FSUPP 708 - Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. McNutt

Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. McNutt’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 1961
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 27 U.S.C. § 121 (Wilson Act) · 27 U.S.C. § 122 (Webb-Kenyon Act) · 27 U.S.C. § 123

Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Crowley v. Christensen · Kidd v. Pearson · James Clark Distilling Company v. Western Maryland Railway Company · Prendergast v. New York Telephone Co.

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

  1. ““It is contended by plaintiffs in error that the bottle designated as Exhibit 2, and called ‘stomach bitters,’ contained patented or proprietary medicine. The people evidently so regarded it, as their instruction No. 8 stated that it is unlawful to keep for sale or to possess in a soft drink parlor any patented or proprietary medicine, whether fit or unfit for beverage use, which contains more than one-half of one per cent, of alcohol by volume. Plaintiffs in error insist that sections 4 and 5 of the act are discriminatory, and amount to class legislation, and are void because the statute permits bona fide drug stores, bona fide general stores, and bona fide grocery stores only to sell such patent or patented medicines, and prohibits proprietors of soft drink parlors and other proprietors mentioned in section 5 from selling such patent or patented articles under any circumstances if they contain one-half or more per cent, of alcohol. It is a well-known fact that keepers of soft drink parlors, restaurants, and some of the other proprietors mentioned in section 5 often resort to the sale of intoxicating liquors under the cloak of their business, and Congress and the Legislature have the undoubted constitutional power to prohibit such proprietors from selling intoxicating liquors under any and all conditions and at the same time permit bona fide drug stores and other such stores to sell the same under proper regulations, or even without any regulations, if there is any substanti”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.