Kahn v. Garvan’s Empirical Analysis
263 F. 909 · 1920
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1964 · most notably Central Union Trust Co of New York v. Garvan Merrill (1921), McGrath v. Manufacturers Trust Co. (1949)
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 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 Runkle v. United States · Miller v. United States · McVeigh v. United States · Seymour v. Freer · The Venus, Rae, Master
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * As the capture is in no sense a condemnation, but merely a sequestration, section 9 furnishes complete relief to all who come within its terms, except for the necessary interruption of their possession, and the possible loss arising from conversion of the property into cash by sale, an incident which does not arise in this case. The interruption to possession, or to the right to immediate possession, was a necessary incident in practice to such a system, which was itself short of the actual war powers of the nation.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * a statute drawn for the purpose of capturing and sequestering enemy property * (Emphasis supplied.);”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The purpose [of the Act] was to accomplish a swift, certain, and final reduction to possession of vast quantities of property involved in incredible complication of ownership and interest. That purpose could be accomplished only at the sacrifice of much that custom had made sacred; with its propriety courts have nothing to do; they may only learn what it was, and consider whether the constitutional limitations were observed. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.