Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 F.2d 684 - United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins.

United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins.’s Empirical Analysis

209 F.2d 684 · 1953

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 2008
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2008

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

100195319601970198019902000decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank · United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc. · People of State of Illinois Gordon v. Campbell · New York v. Maclay · Rankin & Schatzell v. Scott

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

  1. ““Subsequently, and upon the ground that it had not consented to be made a party défendant the Government moved that the action against it be dismissed and that it be allowed to intervene as a party plaintiff for the purpose of seeking foreclosure of its lien. This motion was granted and the United States filed its petition in intervention * * * claiming first and prior tax liens under Section 3670 et seq. of Title 26, U.S.C., on any and all property and rights to property belonging to the taxpayers. The appellee insurance company filed responsive pleadings in which it tendered its loss draft in the sum of $7,500.39 into the registry of the court and prayed for an order directing the clerk to receive and collect this draft and place the proceeds in the registry of the court and that Adams and his wife [the insureds], the United States, and the appellee furniture company [the garnishor] be required to interplead * * *. It further prayed for a discharge from any other * * * liability and for a reasonable attorney’s fee in the sum of $500.00. * * * “The District Court made fact findings * * *. The court was further of opinion that there was no contest between the appellee insurance company and any other parties to the cause and concluded that the insurer was entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““As to the attorney’s fee allowed the garnishee insurance company, Rule 677, Vernon’s Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides: “ ‘Where the garnishee is discharged upon his answer, the cost of the proceeding, including a reasonable compensation to the garnishee, shall be taxed against the plaintiff; where the answer of the garnishee has not been controverted and the garnishee is held thereon, such costs shall be taxed against the defendant and included in the execution provided for in this section; where the answer is contested, the costs shall abide the issue of such contest.’ “The District Court evidently found there was no contest between the insurance company and the other parties, and that the insurance company should be discharged with costs and allowance of a reasonable attorney’s fee of $500. It, therefore, ordered the clerk to issue a check to the insurance company, payable out of the funds paid into the court by it. “If the garnishment lien is not pri- or to the Government liens, and we have held that it is not, certainly fees allowed in that proceeding are not prior to the Government liens, and the authorization of the payment of the attorney’s fees prior to the Government liens was error. The costs and fees should be adjudged against the defendant, as provided by Rule 677.””
    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.