Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 419 U.S. 601 - North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.

North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

1,763
cited by 1,763 later decisions
59
cited 59 times by the Supreme Court
42
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

391 federal appellate · 178 district · 634 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,763 later decisions (59 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), Gerstein v. Pugh (1975)

391 federal appellate · 178 district · 634 state decisions — followed in 42 states

6880197519801990200020102020decided

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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Goldberg v. Kelly · Fuentes v. Shevin · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View

Cited together with Fuentes v. Shevin · Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · Mathews v. Eldridge · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.

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 1,763 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he writ of garnishment is issuable on the affidavit of the creditor or his attorney, and the latter need not have personal knowledge of the facts. The affidavit, like the one filed in this case, need only contain conclusory allegations.”
    32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he length ... of a deprivation of use or possession would be another factor to weigh in determining the appropriate form of hearing....”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “... notice and an opportunity to be heard before an attachment are not absolutely necessary. However, the available procedures must afford the debtor adequate protection against erroneous or arbitrary seizures. The procedural protection is adequate if it represents a fair accommodation of the respective interests of creditor and debtor ....”
    4 later decisions 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.