Price v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
269 U.S. 492 · 1926
Citation profile
144 federal appellate · 62 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 432 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2013 · most notably James v. United States (1961), Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co. (1935)
144 federal appellate · 62 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Miller v. Robertson · Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. Karatz · Pusey & Jones Co. v. Hanssen · Ex Parte Tyler · United States v. Fisher
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 432 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The word ‘debts’ as used in R. S. § 3166 includes taxes. “The claim of the United States does not rest upon any sovereign prerogative; but the priority statutes were enacted to advance the same public policy which governs in the cases of royal prerogative; that is, to secure adequate public revenue to sustain the public burdens. United States v. The State Bank of North Carolina, 6 Pet. 29, 35 . And to that end, section 3466 is to be construed liberally. Its purpose is not to be defeated by unnecessarily restricting the application of the word ‘debts’ within a narrow or technical meaning. Cf. Miller v. Robertson, 266 U. S. 243, 248 . The meaning properly to be attributed to that word depends upon the connection in which it is used in the particular statute and the purpose to be accomplished.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““By answering and joining in the prayer of the complaint, defendant co-operated with the plaintiff to secure the appointment of a receiver to whom it immediately handed over possession and control of all its property and business. While in effect the complaint alleged that defendant was solvent, the facts set forth indicate that it was in a failing condition. And it was found to be insolvent within a short time after the appointment of the receiver. When the assets turned out to be less than the debts, the creditors were entitled to have them dealt with as a trust fund and distributed among them according to their rights and priorities. Under the statute, claims of the United States must first be satisfied.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in all cases of insolvency, or where any estate in the hands of executors or administrators shall be insufficient to pay all the debts due from the deceased . . . ". § 21, 1 Stat. 42. A 1792 enactment broadened the Act's coverage by providing that the language "cases of insolvency”
2 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.