Central Union Trust Co of New York v. Garvan Merrill’s Empirical Analysis
254 U.S. 554 · 1921
Citation profile
125 federal appellate · 38 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 407 later decisions (68 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2006 · most notably Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), Fuentes v. Shevin (1972)
125 federal appellate · 38 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Lawton v. Steele · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al. · American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty · De Lima v. Bidwell · William Cary and Samuel Cary v. Edward Curtis
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 407 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ Sec. 7(c). If the President shall so require, any money or other property owing or belonging to or held for, by, on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of an enemy or ally of enemy not holding a license granted by the President hereunder, which the President after investigation shall determine is so owing or so belongs or is so held, shall be conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian.” 1”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The present proceeding gives nothing hut the preliminary custody such as would have been gained by seizure. It attaches the property to make sure that it is forthcoming if finally condemned and does no more.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mayer v. Garvan · In re Miller“By § 9, as twice amended, any one, ‘ not an enemy or ally of enemy/ claiming any interest, right or title in any money or other property so sequestered and held may give notice of his claim and institute a suit in equity. . . . [The act] distinctly reserves to any claimant who is neither an enemy nor an ally of an enemy a right to assert and establish his claim by a suit in equity unembarrassed by the precedent executive determination. Not only so, but pending the suit, which the claimant may bring as promptly after the seizure as he chooses, the property is to be retained by the Custodian to abide the result and, if the claimant prevails, is to be forthwith returned to him. Thus there is provision for the return of property mistakenly sequestered ; and we have no hesitation in pronouncing, it adequate, for it enables the claimant, as of right, to obtain a full hearing on his claim in a court having power to enforce it if found meritorious.”
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.