Corn Products Refining Co. v. Eddy’s Empirical Analysis
249 U.S. 427 · 1919
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 14 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2005 · most notably Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977), Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. (1984)
21 federal appellate · 14 district · 24 state decisions
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
Relationships
Relies on Savage v. Jones · Mountain Timber Company v. State of Washington · St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Arkansas · Sligh v. James a Kirkwood · Crew Levick Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t is too plain for argument that a manufacturer or vendor has no constitutional right to sell goods without giving to the purchaser fair information of what it is that is being sold. The right of a manufacturer to maintain secrecy as to his compounds and processes must be held subject to the right of the State, in the exercise of its police power and in promotion of fair dealing, to require that the nature of the product be fairly set forth.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The state has determined that it is necessary in order to secure proper protection . . . that purchasers of the described feeding stuffs should be suitably informed of what they are buying and has made reasonable provision for disclosure of ingredients by certificate and label, and for inspection and analysis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidently the purpose of the [labeling] requirement is to secure freedom from adulteration and misbranding....”
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.