Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 265 U.S. 438 - United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar

United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar’s Empirical Analysis

265 U.S. 438 · 1924

Citation profile

169
cited by 169 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

89 federal appellate · 30 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 169 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2009 · most notably Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976), Williams v. Gerber Products Co. (2008)

89 federal appellate · 30 district · 10 state decisions

280192419301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 United States of America v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Company · United States of America v. Antikamnia Chemical Company · City of Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. · United States v. Schider

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

  1. ““Deception may result from the use of statements not technically false or which may be literally true.””
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““For the purpose of this chapter, an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded— “In case of drugs: * * •* “In case of food: “1. If it be an imitation of, or offered for sale under-the distinctive name of, another article. “2. If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser, or purport to be a foreign product when not so, or is an imitation in package or label of another substance of a", previously established name, or which has been trade-marked or patented. * * * “3. If in package form, the quantity of the contents be not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count. * * * “4. If the package containing it or its label shall bear any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients of the substances contained therein, which statement, design, or device shall be false or misleading in any particular: Provided, that an article of food which does not contain any added poisonous or deleterious.ingredients shall not be deemed to be adulterated or misbranded in the following cases: “(1) In the case of mixtures or compounds which may be now, or from time to time hereafter, known as articles of food,, under their own distinctive names, and not an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, if the name be accompanied on the same label or brand with a statement of the place where said article has been manufactured or produced. “(2) In the case of articles”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “apple cider vinegar made from selected apples”
    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.