United States v. Eiland’s Empirical Analysis
223 F.2d 118 · 1955
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2011 · most notably United States v. National Bank of Commerce (1985), Phelps v. United States (1975)
50 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 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 11 U.S.C. § 107 · 11 U.S.C. § 110
Relies on Bailey v. Baker Ice Machine Co. · United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance · Goggin v. Division of Labor Law Enforcement · Miller v. United States · Carey v. Donohue
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prior to levy and notice, the debtor may discharge his debt by payment to the creditor, whatever may have been filed in the clerk’s office; thereafter it may be discharged as to the amount of the tax, only by payment to the Director. 223 F.2d at 122 .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““It should be noted in the first place, that what we are dealing with here is, not a levy upon corporeal property, where the property is left in the possession of the bankrupt to> serve as a basis for credit, but a levy upon an indebtedness with service of notice upon the debtor, the effect of which is to transfer to the United States the right to receive payment of the indebtedness up to the amount of the tax. A lien for taxes upon failure to pay on demand is provided for by 26 U.S.C. § 3670 ;. and this lien arises upon deposit of the assessment list with the Director, 26 U.S.C. § 3671 . Where taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay the taxes due, assertion of this lien is authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 3692 by levy upon all property and rights to property of taxpayer except such as is specifically exempted by 26 U. S.C. § 3691, which has no application here. Upon such levy, it becomes the duty of the debtor to pay the indebtedness levied upon, up to the amount of the'tax, to the Director. 26 U.S.C. § 3710 . * * * “There can be no question, we think, but that the lien for taxes provided by the statute can be asserted against intangible property such as a debt. (Cases cited.) And, we think it equally clear that the proper way to assert the lien is by levy and notice such as was served here. * * * “A creditor ordinarily perfects a lien upon a debt by attachment and garnishment with service of notice thereof upon the debtor. (Cases cited.) When this has been properly done, the effect”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“the service of such notice [of levy] results in what is virtually a transfer to the government of the [property levied upon].”
2 later decisions 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.