Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
339 U.S. 594 · 1950
Citation profile
419 federal appellate · 126 district · 204 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,201 later decisions (69 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2020 · most notably Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967)
419 federal appellate · 126 district · 204 state decisions — followed in 30 states
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 District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Yakus v. United States · Landis v. North American Co. · Phillips v. Commissioner · Bowles v. Willingham · Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board
Cited together with Fuentes v. Shevin · North American Cold Storage Company v. City of Chicago · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · Fahey v. Mallonee · Goldberg v. Kelly
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 1,201 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is sufficient, where only property rights are concerned, that there is at some stage an opportunity for a hearing and a judicial determination.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when the Administrator has probable cause to believe from facts found, without hearing, by him or any officer or employee of the Agency that the misbranded article . . . would be in a material respect misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no claim that the ingredients of the preparation are harmful or dangerous to health. The sole claim is that the labeling was, to use the statutory words, 'misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer' and that therefore the preparation was 'misbranded' when introduced into interstate commerce.”
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.