Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 F.2d 620 - Raffaele v. Granger

Raffaele v. Granger’s Empirical Analysis

196 F.2d 620 · 1952

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
April 2002
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2002 · most notably United States v. National Bank of Commerce (1985), United States v. Craft (2002)

48 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

420195219601970198019902000decided

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. § 2463

Relies on Madden v. Glosztonyi Savings & Trust Co. · Fassett · C. I. T. Corporation v. Flint · United States v. Hutcherson

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

  1. ““All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““does not prevent judicial interposition to prevent a Collector from taking the property of one person to satisfy the tax obligation of another.” 306 F.2d at 46 , quoting from Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620, 623 (3d Cir. 1952).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Once due process has been satisfied by notice to the interested parties and opportunity to be heard, the court may proceed summarily to adjudicate the rightfulness of seizure.” Raffaele v. Granger, 3 Cir. 1952, 196 F.2d 620, 623 ; Gerth v. United States Director of Internal Revenue, D.C.S.D.Cal.1955, 132 F. Supp. 894, 896 ; Seattle Association of Credit Men v. United States, 9 Cir. 1957, 240 F.2d 906, 909 .”
    1 later decision 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.