Legal Opinion
Cott Beverage Corp. v. Horst
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided January 3, 1955No. Appeal, 8PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Horace Stern,
Questioned here are the applicability of certain statutes of the Commonwealth to the article in controversy and their constitutionality if so applied.
The article in controversy is Sucaryl, which is a synthetic, non-nutritive, non-caloric, artificial sweetening agent recommended by physicians in the treatment of obesity and diabetes, but purchasable in any drug store without a doctor’s prescription. Beverages sweetened by it are presently sold in at least 34 of the States from Maine to California. It may be prepared either as calcium cyclamate or sodium…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Powell v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Gambone v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Bortz Coal Co. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. Commissioner of Public HealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
- Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy v. PastorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Woodside v. Sun Ray Drug Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Holland Enterprises, Inc. v. JokaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.