Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 345 U.S. 183 - Orvis v. Brownell

Orvis v. Brownell’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), Chas. T. Main International, Inc. v. Khuzestan Water & Power Authority (1981)

46 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

410195319601970198019902000decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedOrvis v. McGrath (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Markham v. Cabell · Propper v. Clark · Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp. · Zittman v. McGrath · United States v. Crescent Amusement Co.

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

  1. “(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit— (i) any transactions in foreign exchange, (ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof, (iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities; and (B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest; by any person, or with respect to any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “To so interpret [the attachments] would ignore the express conditions on which the consent was extended. Realistically, these reservations deprive the assent of much substance; but that should have been apparent on its face to those who chose to litigate. The opportunity to settle their accounts with the enemy debtor was all that the permission to attach granted .... Petitioners also contend that the Custodian was not given [the] power ... to “annul” liens and attachments. But the question is not whether a lien, concededly valid because obtained prior to the freezing order, may be “annulled” by the Custodian, but rather whether the freezing order prevented the subsequent acquisition, by attachment, of such a property interest as the Custodian would have to recognize under .. . the Act. Because of the supremacy of the Federal Government on matters within its competence, the freezing order, while permitting an attachment for jurisdictional and other state law purposes, prevented the subsequent acquisition of a lien which would bind the Custodian ...”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “§ 515.201. Transactions involving designated foreign countries or their nationals; effective date. (a) All of the following transactions are prohibited, except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury (or any person, agency, or instrumentality designated by him) by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise, if either such transactions are by, or on behalf of, or pursuant to the direction of a foreign country designated under this part, or any national thereof, or such transactions involve property in which a foreign country designated under this part, or any national thereof, has at any time on or since the effective date of this section had any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect: (1) All transfers of credit and all payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution or banking institutions wheresoever located, with respect to any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or by any person (including a banking institution) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: (2) All transactions in foreign exchange by any person within the United States: and (3) The exportation or withdrawal from the United States of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, or the earmarking of any such property, by any person within the United States. (b) All of the following transactions are prohibited, except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury (or any person, agency,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.