Kokoszka v. Belford’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
311 federal appellate · 119 district · 116 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,572 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. (1995), North Haven Board of Education v. Bell (1982)
311 federal appellate · 119 district · 116 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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
reviewedIn re Kokoszka (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · Segal v. Rochelle · Williams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Cited together with Segal v. Rochelle · Lines v. Frederick · Philbrook v. Glodgett · Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.
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 1,572 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When interpreting a statute, the court will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute (or statutes on the same subject) and the objects and policy of the law, as indicated by its various provisions, and give it such a construction as will carry into execution the will of the Legislature.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'periodic payments of compensation, and [does] not pertain to every asset that is traceable in some way to such compensation.' " Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 , 651, 94 S.Ct. 2431, 2436, 41 L.Ed.2d 374 (1974) (quoting In re Kokoszka, 479 F.2d at 997). 9 In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on the rationale behind the Consumer Credit Protection Act, stating that " 'Congress' concern [in passing the act] was not the administration of a bankrupt's estate but the prevention of bankruptcy in the first place by eliminating 'an essential element in the predatory extension of credit resulting in a disruption of employment, production, as well as consumption' and a consequent increase in personal bankruptcies.' " Id. at 650, 94 S.Ct. at 2436 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original). The Court went on to say "[t]here is every indication that Congress, in an effort to avoid the necessity of bankruptcy, sought to regulate garnishment in its usual sense as a levy on periodic payments of compensation needed to support the wage earner and his family on a week-to-week, month-to-month basis.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n short, the Consumer Credit Protection Act sought to prevent consumers from entering bankruptcy in the first place. However, if, despite its protection, bankruptcy did occur, the debtor’s protection and remedy remained under the Bankruptcy Act.”
17 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.