Hebe Co. v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis
248 U.S. 297 · 1919
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 29 district · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 242 later decisions (67 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2005 · most notably Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co (1926), Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same (1925)
25 federal appellate · 29 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 Brown v. Maryland · Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana · Leisy v. Hardin · Savage v. Jones · Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis 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 242 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * *. The purposes to secure a certain minimum of nutritive elements and to prevent fraud may be carried out in this way even though condensed skimmed milk and Hebe both should be admitted to be wholesome. The power of the legislature ‘is not to be denied simply because some innocent articles or transactions may be found within the proscribed class. The inquiry must be whether, considering the end in view, the statute passes the bounds of reason and assumes the character of a merely arbitrary fiat.’ * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * *. If the character or effect of the article as intended to be used 'be debatable, the legislature is entitled to its own judgment, and that judgment is not to be superseded by the verdict of the jury,’ or, we may add, by the personal opinion of the judges, ‘upon the issue which the legislature has decided.’ * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The pure food and drugs act (sec. 7) provides that an article of food shall be considered adulterated 'if any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength,’ or, ‘if any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article,’ or, ‘if any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted,’ and shall be considered mis-branded (sec. 8) ‘if it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.’ However, section 8 of this act has a proviso under which the manufacturers of filled milk claim the right to manufacture it, to the effect that an article shall not be considered adulterated or misbranded ‘in the case of * * * compounds * * * under their own distinctive names, and not an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.’ “The manufacturers of filled milk do not label their cans as ‘milk,’ as that would be a violation of the act, but use such trade names as ‘Hebe,’ ‘Carolene,’ ‘Majal,’ ‘Silver Key,’ ‘Enzo,’ ‘Nyko.’ The compound is put up in the same size and style of cans as the genuine evaporated or condensed milk and is carried by the retail dealers on their shelves side by side with the genuine product. Your committee does not doubt that the sale of filled milh as at present carried on is in violation, if not of the letter, of the spirit of the pure food and drugs act. This act cannot regulate the conduc”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.