Businesses face far fewer legal requirements and restrictions if they sell products that do not qualify as $$hazardous substances$$ under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act $($FHSA$).$ Eric is interested in selling a type of firework$-$like product known as a swizzlegaffe, so he searches to find out if swizzlegaffes qualify as $$hazardous substances$$ under the FHSA. To his surprise, he discovers that courts have reached different conclusions about whether swizzlegaffes qualify as $$hazardous substances$$ under the FHSA. Based on is research, he finds the following court decisions:

Allen v$.$ US$,$ where a U$.$S$.$ District Court in Indiana ruled that swizzlegaffes do qualify as $$hazardous substances$$ under the FHSA, a decision that was not appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals $($which reviews decisions by courts in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin$).$

Beck v$.$ US$,$ where a U$.$S$.$ District Court in Michigan ruled that swizzlegaffes do not qualify as $$hazardous substances$$ under the FHSA, a decision that was reversed on appeal by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals $($which reviews decisions by courts in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee$).$

Clark v$.$ US$,$ where a U$.$S$.$ District Court in Wisconsin ruled that swizzlegaffes do qualify as $$hazardous substances$$ under the FHSA, a decision that was reversed on appeal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals $($which reviews decisions by courts in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin$).$

Dale v$.$ US$,$ where a U$.$S$.$ District Court in Texas ruled that swizzlegaffes do not qualify as $$hazardous substances$$ under the FHSA, a decision that was not appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals $($which reviews decisions by courts in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana$).$