Marshall v. People of State of New York’s Empirical Analysis
254 U.S. 380 · 1920
Citation profile
88 federal appellate · 20 district · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 275 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017 · most notably Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green (1946), New York v. Maclay (1933)
88 federal appellate · 20 district · 84 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Ex Parte Tyler · Joseph Guffey v. James a Smith · St Anthony Falls Water-Power Co v. Board of Water Com'rs of City of St Paul Minn Minneapolis Mill Co · City of Richmond v. Bird
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 275 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The single question is presented whether the state of New York has priority in payment out of the general assets of the debtor over other creditors whose claims are not secured by act of the parties nor accorded a preference, by reason of their nature, by the state Legislature or otherwise. “At common law the crown of Great Britain, by virtue of a prerogative right, had priority over all subjects for the payment out of a debtor’s property of all debts due it. The priority was effective alike whether the property remained in the hands of the debtor, or had been placed in the possession of a third person, or was in custodia legis. The priority could be defeated or postponed only through the passing of title to the debt-tor’s property, absolutely or by way of lien,before the sovereign sought to enforce his right. * * * “This priority arose and exists independently of any statute. The Legislature has never, in terms, -limited its scope; and the courts have rejected as unsound every contention made that some statute before them for construction had, by implication, effected a repeal or abridgment of the priority. The only changes of the right made by statute have been by way of enlarging its scope in certain cases. * * * “The priority of the state extends to all property of the debtor within its borders, whether the debtor be a resident or nonresident and whether the property be in his possession of in custodia legis. The priority is therefore enforceable against the property in ”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The city sought there [the City of Richmond Case] in vain to have taxes declared payable out of the bankrupt’s assets in preference to the claim of the landlord thereon which was secured by a specific lien arising upon distraint. This court held that the city did not have such superior right since neither the laws of the United States nor those of Virginia accorded such priority. Here it is not sought to gain priority over a lien existing at the time when the receiver was appointed; and the priority over unsecured creditors is granted by the common law of New York.”
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.