Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 F.2d 762 - Spellman v. Sullivian

Spellman v. Sullivian’s Empirical Analysis

43 F.2d 762 · 1930

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
December 1968
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1968

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

601930194019501960decided

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. § 118

Relies on Metcalf Brothers Company v. Benjamin Barker Jr · Pusey & Jones Co. v. Hanssen · Goodman v. Niblack · Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co. · Charles Chase v. Emil Wetzlar J

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

  1. “If the [pre-existing lien] rule mentioned in these cases is a sound one and is applicable, no creditor’s bill can be maintained except where the judgment debtor remains available for service within the district. The court may render a judgment in favor of the creditor on the merits, and execution may be returned unsatisfied. The judgment debtor may have equitable assets of considerable value located in the district. But we are told that the judgment debtor, by removing from the district and staying out of it, can baffle the judgment creditor and render the court powerless to enforce its own judgment. That is the very situation in the instant case. If this argument is tenable, it is a reproach to our system of administering justice.”
    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.