United States v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis
247 F.2d 285 · 1957
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2003 · most notably United States v. Rodgers (1983), Lonsdale v. United States (1990)
38 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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
Relies on United States v. City of New Britain · United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank · United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc. · United States v. Acri · United States v. Waddill, Holland & Flinn, Inc.
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * in all cases where a claim or interest of the United States therein is established, [the Court] may decree a sale of such property * * * and a distribution of the proceeds * * *.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since the Vendor, asserting here his equitable vendor’s lien, has neither the status of a ‘mortgagee, pledgee, purchaser, or judgment creditor,’ the right of the Government to the tax lien (footnote omitted) under Section 6321 is not affected by the race between the Notice of Tax Lien . . . and the Vendor’s lis pen-dens for recordation (footnote omitted) under Section 6323, and the question of priority must be determined by other considerations . . . the principal factor being that the lien which is first in time is first in right, ... if, but only if, the one first in time is specific and perfected in the Federal sense.” 247 F.2d at 287 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the lien, equitable in nature, arises only because equity in good conscience requires it to accomplish right and justice. Whether it exists depends on the equities which, in turn, depend upon facts including the intention of the vendor either to, or not to, waive it. As a secret lien it is, or may be, outranked by many liens of innocent purchasers or others. And, to enforce it, the only remedy available is an equitable action for foreclosure in which the debt and the lien must be established. Tex.Jur. 43a, Vendor and Purchaser, supra, §§ 391, 401, 406, 415.””
2 later decisions 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.