Federal Security Adm'r v. Quaker Oats Co’s Empirical Analysis
318 U.S. 218 · 1943
Citation profile
166 federal appellate · 64 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 333 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission (1966), Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul (1963)
166 federal appellate · 64 district · 15 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
reviewedQuaker Oats Co. v. Federal Security Administrator (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Carolene Products Co. · Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Link-Belt Co. · Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division of the Department of Labor
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 333 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by which less expensive ingredients were substituted, or the proportion of more expensive ingredients diminished, so as to make the product, although not in itself deleterious, inferior to that which the consumer expected to receive when purchasing a product with the name under which it was sold. 25 318 U.S. at 230, 63 S.Ct. at 596. To guard the integrity of food products, the act authorized promulgation of standards of identity, requiring”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is enough that the Administrator has acted within the statutory bounds of his authority, and that his choice among possible alternative standards adapted to the statutory end is one which a rational person could have made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“informative labeling only where no such standard had been promulgated, where the food did not purport to comply with a standard, or where the regulations permitted optional ingredients and required their mention on the label.”
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.