Hanner v.’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
11 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2001 · most notably McCahey v. Lp Investors M (1985), 431 F. Supp. 1369 - Betts v. Tom (1977)
11 district · 10 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
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Armstrong v. Manzo · Lambert v. People of the State of California · Schroeder v. City of New York · Staub v. City of Baxley
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Endicott was decided in 1924, and its holding that due process does not require notifying a judgment debtor of execution on his property has never been reaffirmed by this Court. Significantly, the Court in Endicott did not hold that absence of any notice at all was permissible, but rather that the judgment debtor, having had his day in court and being aware of the judgment against him, is expected to know that execution may follow. Since the Endicott decision, there has not been only an expansion of the scope of the notice requirement itself . (citing cases) but a new approach to the constitutional sufficiency of the means of giving notice in particular types of cases (citing cases). “The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing [the opposing party] might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.” . . . (citing a case). The Endicott rationale that a party who has litigated a case and had a judgment taken against him is deemed, for purposes of due process, to be on notice of further proceedings in the same action was rejected in Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220 , 66 S.Ct. 556 , 90 L.Ed. 635 . There the wife won a divorce from her husband in 1926 and an award of $3,000 per year alimony. In 1938, without notifying her ex-husband, the debtor, she obtained a judgment for alimony arrears and a writ of execution. Under the applicable New York law, the husband could have defeated liability for the accrued arrearage by proof, for example, that the wife had remarried ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Significantly, the Court in Endicott did not hold that absence of any notice at all was permissible, but rather that the judgment debtor, having had his day in court and being aware of the judgment against him, is expected to know that execution may follow.” 390 U.S. 736, 740 , 88 S.Ct. 1437, 1440 , 20 L.Ed.2d 270 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Is there any more reason to accept in this case the Endicott fiction of constructive notice because of knowledge of the underlying judgment than there was in Griffin ?”
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.