Lawrence v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 9 district · 86 state decisions

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

1. “[p]ayments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law, and such payments made to, or on account of, a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. The preceding sentence shall not apply to claims of the United States arising under such laws nor shall the exemption therein contained as to taxation extend to any property purchased in part or wholly out of such payments.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Griffith · United Home Foods Dist., Inc. v. Villegas

2. “are intended primarily for the maintenance and support of the veteran.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United Home Foods Dist., Inc. v. Villegas · Estates of Nau v. State

3. ““Having no doubt that the moneys payable by the Government to the veteran were exempt until they came into his hands or those of his guardian, we left the question open ‘whether the exemption remained in force while they continued in those hands or on deposit in a bank.’ The World War Veterans’ Act, 1924, provided that the compensation and insurance allowances should be ‘exempt from all taxation.’ The Act of 1935 is more specific, providing that the payments shall be exempt from taxation and shall not be liable to process ‘either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.’ There was added the qualification that the exemption should not extend ‘to any property purchased in part or wholly out of such payments. ’ This more detailed provision was substituted for that of the earlier Act and was expressly made applicable to payments theretofore made. We think it clear that the provision of the later Act was intended to clarify the former rather than to change its import and it was with that purpose that it was made retroactive.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carrier v. Bryant · Bagnall v. Iowa-Des Moines National Bank & Trust Co.