United States v. Detroit Vital Foods, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
407 F.2d 570 · 1969
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1994
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Bruton v. United States · Boyd v. United States · Abel v. United States · Garrity v. State of New Jersey
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“etc. Decisions are in both federal and state courts. United States v. Detroit Vital Foods, Inc., 407 F.2d 570 , 573 (6th Cir.1969) (A person may not be required to supply information which may possibly incriminate him upon penalty of suffering a forfeiture of his property; this is a”
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.