Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson, Commissioner of Agriculture & Industries’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

87 federal appellate · 40 district · 99 state decisions

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

1. ““It has long been recognized that in those fields of commerce where national uniformity is not essential, either the state or federal government may act. Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co. 2 Pet (US) 245, 7 L ed 412; California v. Thompson, 313 US 109, 114 , 85 L ed 1219, 1221, 61 S Ct 930 . Where this power to legislate exists, it often happens that there is only a partial exercise of that power by the federal government. In such cases the state may legislate freely upon those phases of commerce which are left unregulated by the nation. . . .””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · Hoagland v. Railway Express Agency

2. ““Further, we agree with respondent’s contention that there is no authority to confiscate or destroy materials under the renovated butter act. It should be noted that packing stock adulterated under the definitions of § 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1046 , 21 U.S.C.A. § 342 , when introduced into or while in interstate commerce may be confiscated under § 304, 21 U.S.C.A. § 334 while in interstate commerce or at any time thereafter. Cf. United States v. Nine Barrels of Butter, D.C., 241 F. 499 .” 315 U.S. at page 163, 62 S.Ct. at page 500, 86 L.Ed. 754 . “ * * * Confiscation by the state of material'in production nullifies federal discretion over ingredients.” 315 U.S. at page 168, 62 S.Ct. at page 502, 86 L.Ed. 754 . nt * *' To uphold the power of the State of Alabama to condemn the material in the factory while it was under federal observation and while federal enforcement deemed it wholesome would not only hamper the administration of the federal act but would be inconsistent with its requirements. Whether the sanction used to enforce the regulation is condemnation of the material or the product is not significant. Since there was federal regulation of the materials and composition of the manufactured article, there could not be similar state regulation of the same subject.” 315 U.S. at page 169, 62 S.Ct. at page 503, 86 L.Ed. 754 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. 24 Cans Containing Butter · 107 F. Supp. 521 - Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Board of Public Utility Com'rs

3. “imitation cheese[ ] or any substance in the semblance of ... cheese not the usual product of the dairy and not made exclusively of pure and unadulterated milk or cream, transported into any State ... and remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc. v. Gerace · Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc. v. Gerace