Carrier v. Bryant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 6 district · 61 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is undoubtedly competent for the United States to attach such conditions as they may see fit to the grant of a pension, and to fix by law the time and manner in which the property shall finally pass to the pensioner. But when this money was paid to the agent of the principal defendant, by her consent, and in conformity with the existing provisions of law, it became her property, and created a debt from the agent to her, over which the United States government had no longer any control or jurisdiction. It was no longer, in the language of the statute of 1866, ‘a sum of money due or to become due to any pensioner under the laws of the United States/ It had been paid, and was received by her in the manner she had chosen. It could not be recalled by the government, nor could its disposal be qualified or in any manner limited or abridged.” (Italics supplied.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bagnall v. Iowa-Des Moines National Bank & Trust Co. · United States v. State

2. “[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.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Griffith · State Department of Public Welfare v. Pearson

3. ““The first sentence grants exemption from taxation, claims of creditors, attachment, levy or seizure under any legal process whatever. The things exempted are ‘payments of benefits’ due or to become due either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. “Investments purchased with money received in settlement of benefits are not such payments due or to become due. Accordingly, giving the words employed their ordinary meaning, the notes and bonds in question are not exempted 'by the first sentence in §3. It left them, like other property, subject to taxation, claims of creditors, and legal process. “The second sentence in the section clearly recognizes the distinction between benefit payments and property purchased with money therefrom. It declares the-exemption provisions in the first sentence shall not attach to claims of the United States; also that exemption from taxation shall not extend to property purchased out of benefit payments. Nothing is said concerning claims of creditors. Nevertheless, petitioners seem to maintain, immunity from these must be inferred. But a mere declaration that investments always subject to taxation shall not enjoy exemption therefrom affords no basis for holding them free from claims of creditors. Although the first sentence extended no immunity to investments, apparently out of abundant caution, the second declared them subject to taxation. “We find nothing in the historjr or supposed purpose of the enactment adequate to support a constructio”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bagnall v. Iowa-Des Moines National Bank & Trust Co. · Lasich v. Estate of Wickstrom (In Re Wickstrom)