Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Corn Products Refining Co. Vs. Eddy

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 14, 1919

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

28 entries 9 linked 19 unlinked
Show
  1. Mcdermott Vs. Wisconsin US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1913
  2. Savage Vs. Jones US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1912
  3. Standard Stock Food Co. Vs. Wright US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1912
  4. Schmidinger Vs. Chicago US Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1913
  5. Hutchinson Ice Cream Co. Vs. Iowa US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1916
  6. MountaIn Timber Co. Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · Mar 06, 1917
  7. Crew Levick Co. Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1917
  8. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. Vs. Arkansas US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1910
  9. Sligh Vs. Kirkwood US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1915
    Relied / Followed
  10. U.S. 427 (1919) U.S. Supreme Court Corn Products Refining Co. v. Eddy
    Search
  11. U.S. 427 (1919) Corn Products Refining Company v. Eddy
    Search
  12. bear labels stating the names and percentages of the ingredients composing them. P. 249 U. S. 433 . Savage v. Jones
    Search
  13. and in promotion of fair dealing, to require that the nature of the product be fairly set forth. Heath & Milligan Co. v. Worst
    Search
  14. Armour & Co. v. North
    Search
  15. Hebe Co. v. Shaw
    Search
  16. but solely with the effect and operation of the law as put in force by the state. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  17. Ry. v. Kansas
    Search
  18. this question, in both aspects, the judgment under review is clearly sustained by the decision of this Court in Savage v. Jones
    Search
  19. An attempt is made to distinguish Savage v. Jones
    Search
  20. The Food and Drugs Act of Congress has not been changed in any material respect from the form it bore when Savage v. Jones
    Search
  21. in respect of the omitted matter. Further argument upon the question is foreclosed by the decision in Savage v. Jones
    Search
  22. act, and does not enlarge its purview or establish a rule as to matters which lie outside its prohibitions. Savage v. Jones
    Search
  23. conclusion there reached or to deny to the case its proper authority. Its doctrine was followed and applied in Sligh v. Kirkwood
    Search
  24. U. S. 297 , 248 U. S. 304 . It is argued that the present case is controlled rather by McDermott v. Wisconsin
    Search
  25. U. S. 115 , 228 U. S. 130 , and in effect that this case must be taken as overruling Savage v. Jones
    Search
  26. U.S. Supreme Court Corn Products Refining Co. v. Eddy
    Search
  27. Corn Products Refining Company v. Eddy
    Search
  28. Heath & Milligan Co. v. Worst
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial