Sienkiewicz v. Sienkiewicz’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (1995), Caulkins v. Petrillo (1986)
30 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Merry · Pizzola v. Planning & Zoning Commission · Colli v. Real Estate Commission · Busko v. DeFilippo · Town of East Haven v. City of New Haven
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A judgment creditor may obtain a court order directing the defendant, the judgment debtor, to make payment to the clerk of the court or otherwise. If the defendant fails to obey such an order, the judgment creditor may then apply to the court for an order that execution issue out of a `debt accruing by reason of personal services,' typically wages. The order of wage execution, upon presentment to the individual person or corporation from whom this debt is due and owing, typically the judgment debtor's employer, becomes a continuing levy upon the wage debt until execution is satisfied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Guy“[t]he following property shall be allowed as exempt in addition to any property allowed as exempt under section 52-352b : . . . [p]ayments received by the exemptioner under a . . . pension . . . plan which is established for the CT Page 10854 primary purpose of providing benefits upon retirement by reason of age, health, or length of service and which is either (1) qualified under Sections 401, 403, 404 or 408 of the Internal Revenue Code, . . . or (2) established by federal or state statute, but only to the extent that wages are exempt from execution under section 52-361 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In 1977, Connecticut decided to modernize its antiquated exemption statutes . . . [Sections] 52-352a , 52-352b , and 52-352c . . . enacted basic rules to determine what property of a debtor is unavailable to a creditor seeking to enforce a debt, including a judgment debt, by way of judicial process or court order.”
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.