Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Carolene Products Co. v. Harter

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 29, 1937No. Appeal, 4PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Stern,

This is an appeal from the refusal of the court below to enjoin defendants from seeking to prevent the sale in Pennsylvania of a product marketed by plaintiff.

Plaintiff is a corporation of the State of Michigan, and sells, under the trade names of “Carolene” and “Milnut,” a food compound which is manufactured for it at Litchfield, Illinois, and Warsaw, Indiana. This product is made by evaporating skimmed milk (that is, whole milk from which the butterfat has been removed 1 ), thus reducing it to its constituent solids, and then adding a certain percentage of…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental ExaminersSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  4. Powell v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  5. Plumley v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Carolene Products Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Commonwealth v. ZasloffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Hepps v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Reesman v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1968
  5. State v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1959

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API