Daugherty v. Central Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 10 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Ford Motor Credit Corp. v. Dixon (1989), Wicheff v. Baumgart (In Re Wicheff) (1998)
12 federal appellate · 10 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.
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 3101 · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board · Edwards v. Kearzey · Porter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · 11 Cal. 3d 352 - Kruger v. Wells Fargo Bank · Connin v. Bailey
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“execution, garnishment, attachment or sale to satisfy a judgment order.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hodge v. Sinclair · In Re Dixon“[A] liberal construction of R.C. § 2329.66 does not give us license to enlarge this statute or strain its meaning. We have made it clear that “* * * [b]y ‘liberal construction’ is not meant that words and phrases shall be given an unnatural meaning, or that the meaning shall be * * * expanded to meet a particular state of facts.”.... [W]e are not free, in interpreting this statute, simply to rewrite it on grounds we are thereby improving the law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While we acknowledge the liberal construction of exemption statutes afforded by the courts of this state, ... appellee essentially urges this court to expand R.C. 1329.66 so as to exempt her funds from the banker’s right of setoff. This would involve reading into the statute protection from a common-law, extrajudicial creditors’ remedy which was explicitly omitted by the legislature when R.C. 2329.66 was drafted. Moreover, this exemption statute has been amended on many occasions, most recently in 1984, each time without any reference to the banker’s right- of setoff. Thus, noticeably absent from the legislative history of this provision is any legislative intent to provide exemption protection from the setoff remedy available to banks.”
3 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.