Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 262 F.2d 443 - Mueller v. United States

Mueller v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

262 F.2d 443 · 1958

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
March 1976
most recently cited

22 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 1976 · most notably Keele Hair & Scalp Specialists, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1960), Feil v. Federal Trade Commission (1960)

22 federal appellate ·

140195819601970decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 52 (Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)

Relies on Federal Trade Commission v. Bunte Bros. · Chas. A. Brewer & Sons v. Federal Trade Commission · American Medicinal Products, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Swain Nelson & Sons Co. v. Department of Finance

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

  1. ““It Is Ordered that respondents Maurice J. Feil and Leo A. Loeb, individually and as copartners trading as The Enurtone Company, or trading under any other name or names, and their respective agents, representatives, employees and lessees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the offering for sale, sale, leas ing or distribution of a device known as ‘Enurtone’, or any other device which functions in substantially the same manner in commerce, as ‘commerce’ is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from representing, directly or indirectly: “That the use of said device is of value in stopping bed-wetting or correcting the bed-wetting habit, unless expressly limited in a clear and conspicuous manner to cases of bed-wetting not caused by organic defects or diseases.””
    2 later decisions 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.