Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 U.S. 298 - Henkels v. Sutherland

Henkels v. Sutherland’s Empirical Analysis

271 U.S. 298 · 1926

Citation profile

87
cited by 87 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
August 2008
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 12 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 87 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2008 · most notably Guessefeldt v. McGrath (1952), Becker Steel Co of America v. Cummings (1935)

17 federal appellate · 12 district ·

320192619301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Central Union Trust Co of New York v. Garvan Merrill · Stoehr v. Wallace · United States Angarica De La Rua v. Bayard · Distilled Spirits · Duel v. Hollins

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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Government cannot be sued without its consent, and accordingly it cannot be sued for interest unless it consents to be liable therefor. But the claim here is not for interest to be paid by the United States in the sense of the rule. It is for income, derived from an investment of Henkels’ money in obligations of the United States, which income has been actually received by the Treasury and is in its possession, to be held, as the proceeds themselves are to be held, for the account of the Alien Property Custodian. [Emphasis supplied] 271 U.S. at 301 , 46 S.Ct. at 526 .”
    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.