United States v. Article of Drug . . . Bacto-Unidisk’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
192 federal appellate · 77 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 497 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), Rose v. Lundy (1982)
192 federal appellate · 77 district · 35 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
reviewedUnited States of America, Plaintiff-Libellant v. An Article of Drug Bacto-Unidisk Defendant-Claimant (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 352 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 357 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · United States v. Dotterweich · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ralston Purina Co. · United States v. Sullivan
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 497 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“consistent with the Act's overriding purpose to protect the public health”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The National Nutritional Foods Association, the National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Solgar Co., Inc. v. Donald Kennedy, Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and United States Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Food and Drug Administration, Miles H. Robinson, Pro Se v. Donald Kennedy, Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and United States Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Food and Drug Administration · United States v. United Statesplabs, LLC“intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“coverage be as broad as its literal language indicates * * *.”
5 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.