Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 195 U.S. 159 - Cliff v. United States

Cliff v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

195 U.S. 159 · 1904

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 1982
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1982

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

50190419101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 McCray v. United States · Schick v. United States

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

  1. ““But in this enumeration Congress included, not only those substances which entered into the composition of oleomargarine, make it suitable for food, and, so to speak, form its body, but also others used only for coloring. After naming some, it adds specifically, ‘and other coloring matter.’ The purpose- in so including ‘coloring matter’ is obvious. It was to prevent excluding from the operation of the statute anything in its nature oleomargarine by the addition of a substance not' in reality an ingredient, but serving substantially only the purpose of coloring the produet to cause it to look like butter. The fact that one of the ingredients of this compound is palm oil does not show that such oil does anything else than color the product composed of other ingredients, and if it does substantially only this it is rightfully styled an artificial coloration. * * * Bearing in mind, also, that one of the purposes of this legislation was to prevent the sale of oleomargarine as and for butter, it must be held that when any substance, although named as a possible ingredient of oleomargarine, substantially serves only the function of coloring the mass, and so as to cause the product to ‘look like butter of any shade of yellow,’ it is an artificial coloration.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““That for the purposes of this act certain manufactured substances, certain extracts, apd certain mixtures and compounds, including such mixtures and compounds with, butter, shall be known and designated as ‘oleomargarine,’ namely: All substances heretofore known as oleomargarine, oleo, oleomargarine oil, butterine, lardine, suine, and neutral; all mixtures and compounds of oleomargarine, oleo, oleomargarine oil, butterine, lardine,' suine, and neutral; all lard extracts and tallow extracts; and all mixtures and compounds of tallow, beef fat, suet, lard, lard oil, vegetable oil _ annotto, and other coloring matter, intestinal fat, and offal fat made in imitation or semblance of butter, or when so made, calculated or, intended to be sold as butter or for butter.””
    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.