United States v. Durham Lumber Co.’s Empirical Analysis
257 F.2d 570 · 1958
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2001
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6321 (Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966) · 26 U.S.C. § 6323
Relies on United States v. Bess · United States v. White Bear Brewing Co., Inc. Et Al. · United States v. City of Greenville · Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. New York City Housing Authority · United States v. Kings County Iron Works, 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * the Court of Appeals held that, under North Carolina law, the general contractor did not have a property interest in the face amount, as such, of the general construction contract. Specifically, the court said that ‘except to the extent the claim of the general contractor exceeds the aggregate of the claims of the subcontractors, the general contractor has no right which is subject to seizure under the tax lien.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In any settlement with the general contractor, the owner may take credit for payments made by him to subcontractors, and he is required by statute to withhold sufficient funds to pay all of the claims of subcontractors of which he has notice. The obligation of the owner to the subcontractor is, thus, primary; his obligation to the general contractor, secondary.” (Emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * To the extent that the owners may be allowed to take credit for the amount of their [subcontractors’] claims in any settlement with the general contractor, the existence of the claims are relevant to an appraisal of the worth of the claim of the general contrae-toi* ^ »”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Randall v. Colby
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.