Nix v. Hedden status of the cucumber, squash, pea, and bean. "Nix" has been cited in three Supreme Court decisions as a precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions. ("Sonn v. Maggone," ; "Saltonstall v. Wiebusch & Hilger," ; and "Cadwalader v. Zeh," ). Additionally, in "JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc.," 917 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), a case unrelated to "Nix" aside from the shared focus on tomatoes, a judge wrote the following paragraph citing the case: In 2005, supporters in the New Jersey legislature cited "Nix" as a basis for a bill designating the tomato as the
Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Comrs this, claiming that they had no authority to give such information. Norwich Pharmacal Co. brought proceedings against the Excise Commissioners, to force the Commissioners to disclose the names of the importers, which were the "Intended Defendants". In "Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners" [1974] the House of Lords held that where an innocent third party has information relating to unlawful conduct, a court could compel them to assist the person suffering damage by giving them that information. The judgement is based on the 19th Century procedure known as the "bill of discovery". Lord Reid summarised what became known