Jack Development, Inc. v. Howard Eales, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
March 1998
most recently cited
2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. California & Oregon Land Co. · May v. Le Claire · Moelle v. Sherwood · Etty v. Middleton · 8 App. D.C. 379 - Morris v. Wheat
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An attachment is sufficiently levied on the lands and tenements of the defendant by: (1) mentioning and describing the property in an indorsement on the attachment, made by the officer to whom it is delivered for service, to the following effect: “Levied on the following estate of the defendant, A B, to wit: (Here describe) this_day of_C D, Marshal.”; and (2) serving a copy of the attachment, with the indorsement, and the notice required by section 16-502, on the person, if any, in possession of the property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although a copy of the writ of attachment was mailed to the defendant at the time it was delivered to the marshal, this was insufficient to comply with D.C.Code 1973, §§ 16-502, -508, since by its language the statute requires notice of a perfected levy, not merely notice of the attachment writ. See also, 6 Am.Jur.2d Attachment and Garnishment § 293 (1963) (citations omitted).”
1 later decision 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.