Hebe Co. v. Shaw
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. The case is stated in the opinion. The food product in question, being pure and wholesome, plainly and fairly labeled, is not within the condemnation of the legislation of the State of Ohio, and may be lawfully sold there. United States v. Frank, 189 Fed.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. The case is stated in the opinion. The food product in question, being pure and wholesome, plainly and fairly labeled, is not within the condemnation of the legislation of the State of Ohio, and may be lawfully sold there. United States v. Frank, 189 Fed. Rep. 195, 198; Caha v. United States, 152 U. S. 211, 221; Hutchinson Ice Cream Co. v. Iowa, 242 U. S. 153; Commonwealth v. Boston White Cross Milk Co., 209 Massachusetts, 30; Genesee Valley Milk Products Co. v. J. H. Jones Corporation, 143 App. Div. 624,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is a bill in equity brought to restrain prosecutions threatened against the plaintiffs and their customers for selling a food product of the plaintiffs called Hebe, the bill being based upon the destruction of the plaintiffs’ business which it is alleged will ensue. The prosecutions are threatened mainly or wholly under certain statutes of Ohio which, the plaintiffs argue, do not bear the construction put upon them by the defendants, or, if they do, are bad under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Commerce Clause. Article I, § 8. A similar case was…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Savage v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. LynchSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Sligh v. KirkwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Austin v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by122 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Bowles v. WillinghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
117 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.