408 F. Supp. 315 - Morrison v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably Loftin v. Rush (1985), United States v. Williams (1977)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2409A · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 660 (§ 460 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Robison v. Wichita Falls & North Texas Community Action Corp. · Jackson v. Lynn · Jackson v. Lynn
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Consent to support enforcement Notwithstanding any other provision of law ... moneys (the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employment) due from, or payable by, the United States ... (including any agency ... thereof) to any individual ... shall be subject, in like manner and to the same extent as if the United States ... were a private person, to withholding in accordance with State law enacted pursuant to section 666 of this title [governing child support enforcement] ... and to any other legal process brought by an individual obligee, to enforce the legal obligation of the individual to provide child support or alimony. [42 U.S.C.A § 659(a).] 4”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At the present time, the pay of Federal employees, including military personnel, is not subject to attachment for purposes of enforcing court orders, including orders for child support or alimony. The basis for this exemption is apparently a finding by the courts that the attachment procedure involves the immunity of the United States from suits to which it has not consented.”
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.