Applegate v. Applegate’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016
4 district · 7 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on United States v. Sherwood · Hiram Barber v. Huldah a Barber by Her Next Friend George Cronkhite · McKean Buchanan v. James Alexander · William Hill David Porter and William Walker v. The United States et al. · McGrew v. McGrew
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The next point by the defendants raises the question of the right of a judgment creditor to attach or garnishee a debt due to his debtor by the United States. Whatever the form of this action, it amounts in fact to an attachment and garnishment against the United States. “That such action cannot be maintained without the consent of the United States to being sued has long been established. The rule laid down by Justice McLean in Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20 , 11 L.Ed. 857 , has never been departed from. While the Congress has seen fit to waive the immunity of the United States from suit in the case of certain money claims against it and also in case of many of the corporations created by it, it has so far never waived that immunity and permitted attachment or garnishee proceedings against the United States Treasury or its Disbursing Officers. This cannot be done either directly, or indirectly through the appointment of a sequestrator or receiver or by contempt order against the debtor defendant. McGrew v. McGrew, 59 App.D.C, 230, 38 F.2d 541 .””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Federal Courts outside the District of Columbia and of certain territories have no jurisdiction generally pertaining to divorce and alimony. That has been left entirely to the State courts. * * * In coming into this court upon a decree of the District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiff to all practical purposes occupies the same position as if she were relying upon the decree of a competent court of one of the States. " (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.