Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 205 CTCL 467 - Keydata Corp. v. United States

Keydata Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
March 2009
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably Prudential Insurance Company of America v. United States (1986), Forman v. United States (1985)

2 federal appellate ·

1601974198019902000decided

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 Segal v. Rochelle · United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · United States v. Bess · Commissioner v. Stern · Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. United States

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

  1. “Despite the broad language of the Act, and the courts’ tendency at an earlier time to read it as an all-inclusive prohibition, numerous classes of assignments, although literally within the statutory ambit, have been judicially exempted from its operation. The largest category of excised assignments are those which, in one form or another, occur by operation of law. Various such assignments which are regularly held to be unaffected by the Act include the passage of claims to heirs and devisees, transfers made incident to proceedings in bankruptcy or receivership, transfers by the succession of one business entity for another, assignments made by judicial sale or order, and assignments produced by operation of the law of subrogation. These classes of assignments are all thought to be outside the statute’s scope because none of them threatens the dangers Congress sought to avoid by enacting the prohibition. [Citations omitted and emphasis added.]”
    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.