Williams v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 1998
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 42 U.S.C. § 652 (§ 452 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co. · Willingham v. Morgan · Simon Taylor v. Joe Anderson
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Consent by United States to garnishment and similar proceedings for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective January 1, 1975, moneys (the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employment) due from, or payable by, the United States (including any agency or instrumentality thereof and any wholly owned Federal corporation) to an individual, including members of the armed services, shall be subject, in like manner and to the same extent as if the United States were a private person, to legal process brought for the enforcement against such individual of his legal obligations to provide child support or make alimony payments. 42 USC § 659 (1976).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus, although not free from ambiguity, the legislative history is not inconsistent with a recognition of a distinction between original and removal jurisdiction. Further, there is no indication in either the letter or the spirit of the wording of section 659, or any provision of the Social Services Amendments of 1974 of which section 659 is a small part, which suggests that the Congress intended to alter the reach and effect of section 1442(a)(1). In that context, legislative history must be very clear indeed to cause a federal district court to interpret narrowly, rather than broadly, the combination of sections 1442(a)(1) and 659.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. Young“[T]he removal statute is an incident of federal supremacy, and . . . one of its purposes was to provide a federal forum for cases where federal officials must raise defenses arising from their official duties. On this view, the test for removal should be broader, not narrower, than the test for official immunity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. Young
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.