Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 241 U.S. 265 - United States v. Forty Barrels

United States v. Forty Barrels’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
5
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

6 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2010

6 district · 5 state decisions

3019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Savage v. Jones · United States of America v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Company · Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States of America · United States of America v. Antikamnia Chemical Company

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

  1. “It [the syrup] was originally called ‘Coca-Cola Syrup and Extract’. It is produced by melting sugar, — the analysis showing that 52.64 per cent, of the product is sugar and 42.63 per cent, is water. Into the syrup thus formed by boiling the sugar, there are introduced coloring, flavoring, and other ingredients, in order to give the syrup a distinctive character. The caffeine, as has been said, is introduced in the second or third ‘melting.’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Congress, we think, referred to ingredients artificially introduced; these it described as ‘added.’ The addition might be made to a natural food product or to a compound ... we think that it was the intention of Congress that the artificial introduction of ingredients of a poisonous or deleterious character which might render the article injurious to health should cause the prohibition of the statute to attach.”
    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.