Legal Opinion

Carolene Products Co. v. Thomson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 1936No. Docket No. 133, Calendar No. 38,496PublishedCited by 63 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFead, J.

Plaintiff manufactures and sells a milk product under two names — Carolene and Milnut. Defendants’ predecessors in office notified plaintiff that the product does not conform to Michigan law and threatened arrest of any dealer selling it. Plaintiff filed petition for declaration of rights and prayed that the invoked statute be declared unconstitutional and defendants restrained from interference with sales. It appeals from decree dismissing the bill.

The product is sold in cans, bearing labels describing its elements and uses as follows:

In the center—

(Not less than “Carolene (Not less 18% Skim…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Schlesinger v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Quong Wing v. KirkendallSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  3. Weaver v. Palmer Brothers Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. Hebe Co. v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
  5. Price v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1915

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by63 opinions

  1. United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Shavers v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  3. O'Donnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Carolene Products Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  5. City of Detroit v. QuallsMichigan Supreme Court · 1990

58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API