Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 CUSTCT 136 - Strauss v. United States

Strauss v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
December 2007
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)

Relies on P. John Hanrahan, Inc., Trans. v. United States · Schall & Co. 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The common meaning to be applied is that of the imported preparation, not of its several components. While the sugars and syrup in the preparation “bubble gum” are nutritious when swallowed, and in that sense they (the sugars and syrup) are edible, there is not such evidence as to the preparation “bubble gum.” To the contrary, it appears that bubble gum is not customarily eaten and swallowed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.