424 F. Supp. 866 - Watson v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
January 1985
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Berkey v. United States · Hostinsky v. United States · Goodwin v. Claytor · Motor Finance Co. v. Putnam · Hooper v. Hartman
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“G.S.1-440.21. “Nature of garnishment. — (a) Garnishment is not an independent action but is a proceeding ancillary to attachment and is the remedy for discovering and subjecting to attachment * * * (2) Any indebtedness to the defendant * * *» G.S. 1-440.1. “Nature of attachment. — (a) Attachment is a proceeding ancillary to a pending principal action, is in the nature of a preliminary execution against property, and is intended to bring property of a defendant within the legal custody of the court in order that it may subsequently be ap plied to the satisfaction of any judgment for money which may be rendered against the defendant in the principal action.” G.S. 1-440.2. “Actions in which attachment may be had. — Attachment may be had in any action the purpose of which, in whole or in part, or in the alternative, is to secure a judgment for money, or in any action for alimony or for maintenance and support, or an action for the support of a minor child, but not in any other action.” G.S. 1-440.4. “Property subject to attachment.— All of a defendant’s property within this State which is subject to levy under execution, or which in supplemental proceedings in aid of execution is subject to the satisfaction of a judgment for money, is subject to attachment under the conditions prescribed by this article.” G.S. 1-440.28. “Admission by garnishee; set-off; lien.— (a) When a garnishee admits in his answer that he is indebted to the defendant, or was indebted to the defendant at the t”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Elmwood v. Elmwood““[A] garnishment is in effect a suit by the principal debt- or, the defendant in the action, in the name of the plaintiff, and for his use and benefit, against the garnishee to recover the debt due to the plaintiff’s debtor and apply it to the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s demand. It would appear to be a necessary corollary from the proposition, thus stated, that the plaintiff in the garnishment is in his relation to the garnishee substituted merely to the rights of his own debtor and can enforce no claim against the garnishee which the debtor himself, if suing, would not be entitled to recover. [Citations omitted.] The garnishee can be placed in no worse position by reason of the garnishment than he occupied as a debtor to the defendant, nor subjected to any greater liability.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Elmwood v. Elmwood“The [officer] earns his retirement pay, like his pay when he was on active duty, by staying alive, obeying military discipline, and being subject to recall to the active military service. Watson, supra at 868 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.