New Hampshire Fire Insurance v. Scanlon’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 29 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2022 · most notably Lonsdale v. United States (1990), United States v. Hubbard (1980)
60 federal appellate · 29 district · 16 state decisions
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
reviewedNew Hampshire Fire Insurance v. Scanlon (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 107 · 26 U.S.C. § 6331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2463
Relies on Weeks v. United States · Phillips v. Commissioner · Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States · Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al.
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The history of § 2463 plainly indicates a congressional purpose to-protect that property in the revenue officer’s custody and not to transfer that custody either actually or fictionally into the custody of the federal courts. The section was originally adopted in 1833 to meet a particular necessity brought about by South Carolina’s adoption of an ‘Ordinance of Nullification.’ That, state ordinance authorized state-officials to seize property that had. been distrained or levied on by federal officers and provided that South Carolina state courts could issue-writs of replevin to take such property out of the hands of federal officials. The plain object of the-1833 Act was to counteract this state-ordinance and it therefore specifically provided that property held under United States revenue laws should not be ‘repleviable.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“conducted without formal pleadings, on short notice, without summons and complaints, generally on affidavits, and sometimes even ex parte.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.