Flemming v. Florida Citrus Exchange’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 7 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board (1974), Air California v. United States Department of Transportation (1981)
65 federal appellate · 7 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
reviewedFlorida Citrus Exchange v. M. B. Folsom, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Frank R. Schell v. M. B. Folsom, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 332 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 342 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 346 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 351 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 354 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 361 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on United States v. Dotterweich · Territo v. United States · 62 Cases More or Less Each Containing Six Jars of Jam v. United States · United States of America v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Company · Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Vance
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Here again, in our construction of this explicit Act, we must be sensitive to what Congress has written, and recall that ‘It is for us to ascertain — neither to add nor to subtract, neither to delete nor to distort.’ 62 Cases of Jam v. United States, 340 U.S. 593, 596 , 71 S.Ct. 515, 518 , 95 L.Ed. 566 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is true that the ultimate purpose * * * of the adulteration provisions of the Act is to protect health, and that no one makes the color substances by themselves an item of diet. But it certainly was competent for Congress, in the light of what were recognized problems to health in the use of such added colors, to adopt a rule of caution in treating this recognized and definable problem area. This rule of caution is here one which relieves the Secretary from the burden of showing in each case that a food containing them raises a possibility of injury to health, and requires that the color stuffs, * * * not be added unless they could pass a higher standard.” [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . (C) if it is, or if it bears or contains, any food additive which is unsafe within the meaning of section 348 [Sec. 409] of this title: . . . .”
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.