McMillan v. Dean’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 1999
4 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
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 Cullers v. James · P. J. Willis & Bro. v. Morris · Simmang v. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. · 27 Tex. Civ. App. 459 - Cates v. McClure · Smith v. Horton
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The statute considered by the McMillan Court contained no monetary limit. The 1991 Amendment established the present limit of $60,000 for a family. 2. The 1973 Amendment added “equipment” to the exemption. 3. The statute considered by the McMillan Court referred to items “belonging to any trade or profession.” Starting with the 1973 Amendment, the wording changed to “used in any trade or profession.” By this change, the Legislature seemed to overrule that part of McMillan which stated that the exemption did not extend “to articles or things useful to a trade or profession.” McMillan at 739 . Thus, the change allowed a debtor to claim equipment used in his trade or profession as exempt, even though it might be of a general nature. 4. The 1991 Amendment deleted the requirement that tools of the trade be “reasonably necessary for the family.” Apparently the Legislature felt that, if the items were used in the trade or profession, they would be appropriate for the exemption even if they were not considered necessary to pursue that trade or profession. 5. In 1973 a boat was added to the list of property which could be claimed as exempt. In 1991, the boat exemption was expanded to include “boats and motor vehicles,” showing the intent of the Legislature to allow more than one boat and more than one motor vehicle to be claimed as an exempt tool of the trade.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Weiss · In Re Legg“The phrase “tools of trade” has been held to apply only to such instruments as are used by hand, and as not comprehending expensive and complicated machinery propelled by power other than hand.... The word “apparatus” as used in the statute has been held to be practically synonymous with the word “tools”;' but that it may take a wider scope and may include such minor machinery and such as may be operated by hand, and such as is not included under the term “tools of the trade.” The word “apparatus,” however, is not understood, as used in the statute, to designate large and complicated machinery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Legg“[A] “tool or apparatus belonging to a trade” did not extend to articles or things merely useful to a trade or profession and that the exemption statute was not intended to encompass general commercial pursuits which require no particular skill in the use of tools or apparatus.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Nipper
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.