Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 170 MOAPP 108 - Potter v. Whitten

Potter v. Whitten’s Empirical Analysis

1913

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
5
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp (1958), State Ex Rel. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Lasky (1970)

23 state decisions

5019131920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Holker v. Hennessey · Littleton v. Richardson · Strong v. Phœnix Insurance · City of St. Joseph v. Union Railway Co. · Humphreys v. Atlantic Milling Co.

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A fundamental doctrine of garnishment is that the plaintiff does not acquire any greater rights against the garnishee than the defendant himself possesses. When, therefore, the attachment plaintiff seeks to avail himself of the rights of the defendant against the garnishee, his recourse against the latter is limited by the extent of the garnishee’s liability to the defendant. This principle is subject, however, to an exception, where the garnishee is in possession of effects of the defendant under a fraudulent transfer from the latter. There, though the defendant would have no claim against the garnishee, yet a creditor of the defendant can subject the effects in the garnishee’s hands to his attachment.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““A deposit to the credit of a second person to whom the bank acknowledges an indebtedness by a certificate may be subjected to a garnishment in the hands of the bank.””
    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.