Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 F.2d 590 - Rothensies v. Ullman

Rothensies v. Ullman’s Empirical Analysis

110 F.2d 590 · 1940

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
February 1983
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1983 · most notably New Hampshire Fire Insurance v. Scanlon (1960), Raffaele v. Granger (1952)

29 federal appellate · 7 district ·

23019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on Mills v. Green · Brownlow v. Schwartz · Fassett · American Book Company v. State of Kansas Galen Nichols · Long v. Rasmussen

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “* * * the section of the Internal Revenue Code which we have quoted was not intended to deprive the courts of jurisdiction to restrain revenue officers from illegally collecting taxes out of property which does not belong to the person indebted to the government.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Although the question was not raised in the district court the appellant now contends that the court was without jurisdiction to quash the warrant of distraint. Sec. 934, Rev.Stat., 28 U.S.C.A. § 747 , provides * * * (See footnote p. 4). It was early held that property of a third party seized under a warrant of distraint for the payment of taxes was ‘property taken or detained by any officer’ within the meaning of this section. Treat v. Staples, Fed.Cas.No. 14,162, Holmes 1; Brice v. Elliott, Fed.Cas. No.1,854, 2 Wkly.Notes Cas., Pa., 560. It has been held by the Supreme Court that district courts having jurisdiction of property ‘taken or detained’ by revenue officers are given power by the last clause of the section to decide claims of title and to award to the rightful owner possession of the property seized. Ex parte Fassett, 142 U.S. 479 , 12 S.Ct. 295 , 35 L.Ed. 1087 . Such property, although seized by executive warrant, is, as the act expressly provides, ‘in the custody of the law2 * **and subject to ‘the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States’ having jurisdiction of the officer and the property under Sec. 24(5), of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 (5).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.