Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 335 U.S. 355 - United States v. Urbuteit

United States v. Urbuteit’s Empirical Analysis

335 U.S. 355 · 1948

Citation profile

181
cited by 181 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

77 federal appellate · 21 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 181 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2015 · most notably Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown (1957), Kordel v. United States (1948)

77 federal appellate · 21 district · 17 state decisions

48019481950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedUrbeteit v. United States (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 334 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 352 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)

Relies on Ex Parte Barber · Kordel v. United States · Urbeteit v. United States

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

  1. “In this case it is plain to us that the movements of machines and leaflets in interstate commerce were a single interrelated activity, not separate or isolated ones. * * * The fact that the false literature leaves in a separate mail does not save the article from being misbranded. Where by functional standards the two transactions are integrated, the requirements of § 304(a) are satisfied, though the mailings or shipments are at different times.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “admitted that the devices and leaflets [extolling the alleged virtues of the devices], had been shipped in interstate commerce, but denied that they were shipped together or that they were related to each other.”
    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.