Olson v. Ische’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Subdivision 1. Affidavit. To obtain the writ of attachment, the plaintiff, his agent or attorney, shall make affidavit that a cause of action exists against the defendant, specifying the amount of the claim and the ground thereof. Subd. 2. Grounds. * * ⅜ (b) An order of attachment which serves only to secure property and not to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant may be issued in the following situations: (1) When a person, resident or nonresident, a corporation, domestic or foreign, owns or has any interest in any kind of property, tangible or intangible, which is present within the state and may be applied to the satisfaction of a valid in personam judgment against the defendant; or (2) When a valid in personam action has been instituted and a person, resident or nonresident, or corporation, domestic or foreign, owns or has an interest in any kind of property, tangible or intangible, which is present within the state and may be applied to the satisfaction of a valid in personam judgment, when rendered, against the defendant, if: (i) That person or corporation has removed or is about to remove property from this state; or (ii) That person or corporation has assigned, disposed of, or secreted or is about to assign, dispose of, or secrete, property.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. Mitchell

2. ““In the prior 1980 version of the attachment statute, discussed in Gamer , attachment was allowed if the debtor assigns, secretes or disposes of property or is about to do so “with intent to delay or defraud his creditors.” This quoted phrase is absent in the current statute. Now the creditor need only allege that the debtor has assigned, disposed of, or secreted property, or is about to do so, regardless of the debtor’s intent. This statutory language does not adequately balance the competing interests of the creditor and debtor and fails to afford adequate protection to the innocent debt- or. We have no hesitancy in declaring subdivision 2(b)(2)(h) of section 570.02 to be overbroad, and we hold it to be unconstitutional.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. Mitchell

3. “1. The creditor was required to allege in a verified affidavit specific facts, rather than conclusory allegations in statutory language, showing his entitlement to prehearing sequestration. 2. A showing of entitlement under the statute had to be made to a judge and judicial authorization obtained. 3. The creditor was required to post a sufficient bond to protect the debtor against damages should the writ be vacated later. 4. After seizure, the debtor could demand an immediate hearing where the creditor was compelled to prove the grounds underlying the writ. 5. The debtor could regain possession without seeking to vacate the writ by filing his own bond.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. M.W. Ettinger, Inc. v. Anderson