United States v. Waddill, Holland & Flinn, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

179 federal appellate · 55 district · 126 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 519 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * But it is a matter of federal law as to whether a lien created by state statute is sufficiently specific and perfected to raise questions as to the applicability of the priority given the claims of the United States by an act of Congress. If the priority of the United States is ever to be displaced by a local statutory lien, federal courts must be free to examine the lien's actual legal effect upon the parties. A state court's characterization of a lien as specific and perfected, however conclusive as a matter of state law, cannot operate by itself to impair or super c ede a long-standing Congressional declaration of priority. * * *”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Saidman · 47 Wash. 2d 857 - Fleming v. Brownfield

2. “1. The United States claimed the sum of $1,559.63, plus interest, representing certain unpaid federal unemployment compensation taxes and a debt arising out of a Federal Housing Administration transaction. 2. The Virginia Unemployment Compensation Commission made a tax claim which was conceded to be subordinate to 1 above and hence not considered. 3. The City of Danville claimed $300.-55 as personal property taxes still unpaid. On July 2, 1941, the city dis- trained on all of the property on the leased premises. 4. The defendant landlord Waddill, Holland & Flinn, Inc. claimed $1,500.-00 for six months’ rent due and to become due. On July 1, 1941, twelve days after the deed of assignment was executed, the defendant landlords obtained a distress warrant for 3% months’ past due rent and an attachment for 2% months’ future installments of rent. On the same day the firm levied the warrant and attachment on the assignor’s property located on the leased premises.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Melchiorre

3. ““Nor was the statutory lien perfected as a matter of actual fact, regardless of how complete it may have been as a matter of state law. The tenant was divested of neither title nor possession by the silent existence of the landlord’s statutory lien on the date of the assignment. -* * *»”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Menier Hardware No. 1, Inc.