Stoehr v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
255 U.S. 239 · 1921
Citation profile
157 federal appellate · 41 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 381 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1993 · most notably Fuentes v. Shevin (1972), Arnett v. Kennedy (1974)
157 federal appellate · 41 district · 33 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedStohr v. Wallace
Relationships
Relies on Central Union Trust Co of New York v. Garvan Merrill · Miller v. United States · Confiscation Cases · United States v. Field
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 381 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On the contrary, it 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, a's of right, to obtain a full hearing on his elaim in a court having power to enforce it if found meritorious.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(c) Any person whose property the President is authorized to return under the provisions of subsection (b) hereof may file notice of claim for the return of such property, as provided in subsection (a) hereof, and thereafter may make application to the President for allowance of such claim and/or may institute suit in equity to recover such property, as provided in said subsection, and with like effect. The President or the court, as the case may be, may make the same determinations with respect to citizenship and other relevant facts that the President is authorized to make under the provisions of subsection (b) hereof,” “(b) In respect of all money or other property conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian or seized by him hereunder and held by him or by the Treasurer of the United States, if the President shall determine that the owner thereof at the time such money or other property was required to be so conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered,1 or paid to the'Alien Property Custodian or at the time when it was voluntarily delivered to him or was seized by him was— “(1) A citizen or subject of any nation or state or free city other than Germany or Austria or Hungary or Austria-Hungary, and is at the time of the return of such money or other property hereunder a citizen or subject of any such nation or state or free city. * * * “(8) * * * Then the President without any application being made therefor, may order the payment, co”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“' “After the end of the war any claim of an enemy or of' an ally of enemy to any money or other property received and held by the alien property custodian or deposited in the United States Treasury, shall be settled as Congress shall direct.””
4 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.