Schlessing v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
239 F.2d 885 · 1956
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
June 1967
most recently cited
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 334 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 352 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
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.
“The practice of medicine and chiropractic in California is regulated by the legislature and administrative boards of the state. There is no law, regulation or decision of that state which forbids the shipment of an Ultrasoniseur into its boundaries. It is a mooted question whether a chiropractor can use such a device, but it is one for the courts and agencies of California to regulate. The agency has no jurisdiction or authority to attempt to regulate the practice of medicine or chiropractic in that state.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to regulate the practice of medicine and chiropractic within a state. The court states that the Act does not correspondingly”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a practitioner licensed by law to * * * use or direct the use of the device.”
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.