misbranded
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 332 U.S. 689 - United States v. Sullivan · 1948Most cited · 580 citing opinions
the chief purpose of forbidding the destruction of the label is to keep it intact for the information and protection of the consumer. That purpose would be frustrated when the pills the consumer buys are not labeled as required, whether the label has been torn from the original container or the pills have been transferred from it to a non-labeled one.
How the Supreme Court has restated “misbranded”
Each Supreme Court definition of “misbranded,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “misbranded”
Court decisions citing the 3 opinions that defined “misbranded” — 813 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 3 definitions, chronological · 1918–1948
- ORIGINAL
The term 'misbranded,' as used herein, shall apply to all drugs, or articles of food, or articles which enter into the composition of food, the package or label of which shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding such article, or the ingredients or substances contained therein which shall be false or misleading in any particular... an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded: First. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.
Pure Food Act
- 1924·265 U.S. 438 - United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar[p14]· cited 169×
If an article is not the identical thing that the brand indicates it to be, it is misbranded.