Schlaefer v. Schlaefer’s Empirical Analysis
112 F.2d 177 · 1940
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 8 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1995 · most notably Wissner v. Wissner (1950), Ridgway v. Ridgway (1981)
16 federal appellate · 8 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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
Relies on Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Hess v. Pawloski · Harris v. Balk · Davis v. Davis · Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the usual purpose of exemptions is to relieve the person exempted from the pressure of claims hostile to his dependents' essential needs as well as his own personal ones, not to relieve him of familial obligations and destroy what may be the family's last and only security, short of public relief. . . . The duty is to share, not to desert, when trouble comes.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nor does it violate the statute’s language or purpose that the payments are and will continue to be made in installments. Until the payments are due, they cannot be collected by the creditor or one claiming through him. But that does not prevent the court (sitting in equity as here) from directing that payment, when due, be made not to the creditor but to one whom it adjudges to have a superior right to the fund. 71 App.D.C. at 357 , 112 F.2d at 184 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As presented to the court, it is the position of the committee for the lunatic that the auditor’s report should be construed to deny exceptant’s right to further payments under the award of the decree. It is shown by the committee for the lunatic that the funds available for the payment of alimony are limited to proceeds of disability compensation paid to and due his ward, and that such funds are exempt from exceptant’s claim and demands under the act approved August 12, 1935, c. 510,§3, 49 Stat. 609 (38 U. S. C. A. §454a). I am of opinion that the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, decided February 5, 1940 in the case of Anna Katharine Sehlaefer, Appellant, v. Wallace Clayton Schlaefer and Prudential Insurance Company of America * * * controls the decision in the instant ease. * * * I think there can be no genuine distinction in principle between the case cited and the one at bar. I subscribe to the reasoning of that ease and apply it to this. The judgment for alimony is not a debt in the ordinary sense. It is an obligation of a higher order. The purposes of the exemption statute in that ease and the purpose of the exemptions in this were to protect not only the recipient of the benefits but to afford some degree of security to the family and dependents of such recipient. The enactment of these statutes had as their purpose, at least in part, to insure the public against the pauperism of the recipient of the benefits or that of his de”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.