Spicer v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
288 U.S. 430 · 1933
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1965 · most notably Trotter v. State of Tennessee Blount County Tenn (1933), Carrier v. Bryant (1939)
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 76 state decisions — followed in 23 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.
Relationships
Relies on Phillips v. Commissioner · Bramwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Westfall v. United States · Lamar v. Micou · Taylor v. Bemiss
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The guardian, appointed by the county court, was by the laws of the State given the custody and control of the personal estate of his ward and was authorized to collect and receive the money in question. * * * And unquestionably payment to the guardian vested title in the wafd and operated to discharge the obligation of the United States in respect of such installments. Taylor v. Bemiss, 110 U. S. 42, 45 [ 3 S. Ct. 441 , 28 L. Ed. 64, 65 ], Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 472 [ 5 S. Ct. 221 , 28 L. Ed. 751, 758 ]. Maclay v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 152 U. S. 499, 503 [ 14 S. Ct. 678 , 38 L. Ed. 528, 531 ], Martin v. First Nat. Bank, 51 F.(2d) 840, 844 . In re Estate of Stude, 179 Iowa 785, 788 ; 162 N. W. 10 . State ex rel. Smith v. Shawnee County Comm’rs, 132 Kan. 233, 243 ; 294 Pac. 915 ; certiorari denied 283 U. S. 855 [ 51 S. Ct. 648 , 75 L. Ed. 1462 ], Schouler, Dom Rel., 6th ed., §892. “Tbe provisions for exemption, non-assignability and suspension of payments plainly imply tbe passage of title from tbe United States to the veteran. The denunciation of embezzlement by guardians is not inconsistent with that intention. These regulations, like many to be found in pension laws, disclose a purpose to safeguard to beneficiaries the appropriations and payments made for their benefit [citing cases] and evince special solicitude for the protection of veterans who by reason of mental incompeteney are unable to protect themselves. The clauses subjecting such payments to ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is no suggestion in the opinion that the United States had any interest as owner in the money embezzled. The power of Congress to punish such misappropriation is not limited to acts causing loss to the United States. [Citing cases] * * * here the guardian was appointed pursuant to state law to act for and on behalf of his ward. He was not an agent or instrumentality of the United States. Shippee v. Commercial Trust Co., 115 Conn. 326 , 161 Atl. 775 . Puffenbarger v. Charter, 112 W. Va. 488 ; 165 S. E. 541 . State ex rel. Smith v. Shawnee County Comm’rs, supra [ 132 Kan. 233 , 294 P. 915 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The provisions for exemption, nonassignability, and suspension of payments plainly imply the passage of title from the United States to the veteran.””
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.