Evans v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2001
1 district · 7 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 15 U.S.C. § 1672 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 1673 · 15 U.S.C. § 1677 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on 326 F. Supp. 419 - Hodgson v. Cleveland Municipal Court · Hodgson v. Hamilton Municipal Court · Willhite v. Willhite
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 1677. Effect on State laws This subchapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person from complying with, the laws of any State (1) prohibiting garnishments or providing for more limited garnishments than are allowed under this subchapter____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The federal statutes dealing with garnishment ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671-1677 ) are not an attempt to create or establish garnishment proceedings but are meant only to pre-empt [sic] state laws which are less restrictive. The federal law is meant to place a maximum for garnishment of that which it defines as disposable earnings, but it does not preempt those state statutes dealing with garnishment that are more restrictive. Hodgson v. Hamilton Municipal Court, 349 F.Supp. 1125 (S.D.Ohio, 1972); and Hodgson v. Cleveland Municipal Court, 326 F.Supp. 419 (N.D.Ohio, 1971). Therefore, in the case at bar, the Court must look to Oklahoma law regarding garnishment if it is more restrictive.”
1 later decision 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.