Gehrig v. Shreves’s Empirical Analysis
491 F.2d 668 · 1974
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2004
5 federal appellate ·
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 Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · Segal v. Rochelle · Cole v. United States · Lubin v. Allison
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Resolution of the instant controversy rests on whether the rationale of Segal or Lines most appropriately applies to the wage earner’s tax refund claim made here. The Second Circuit in Kohoszka [ 479 F.2d 990 ] rejected Lines as the applicable precedent, concluding that: What we have then in Lines is a very narrow exception to the general proposition that everything of value passes to the trustee, i. e., vacation pay which will become essential for basic week to week support in the future does not pass. Because a tax refund is not the weekly or other periodic income required by a wage earner for his basic support, to deprive him of it will not hinder his ability to make a fresh start unhampered by the pressure of preexisting debt. Therefore, the tax refund is § 70(a)(5) property which passes to the trustee. ( 479 F.2d at 994-995 .) As we have already noted, the Ninth Circuit reached a contrary conclusion in affirming Cedor [ 337 F.Supp. 1103 (N.D. Cal.1972)]. Ruling that the income tax refund is equivalent to the vacation pay present in Lines , the Cedor court stated: There is nothing to suggest that the sums refunded were related to the circumstances which precipitated the bankruptcy. The Supreme Court considered the question in Segal to be “close”, 382 U.S. 379 [ 86 S.Ct. 514 ] * *; in light of Lines and Snaidach [sic], [ 395 U.S. 337 , 89 S.Ct. 1820 , 23 L.Ed.2d 349 ], the balance on this question tips in favor of the bankrupt. The collection by the Internal Revenue Servic”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trustee of the estate of the bankrupt . shall in turn be vested by operation of law with the title of the bankrupt as of the date of the filing of the petition initiating a proceeding under this Act, except insofar as it is to property which is held to be exempt, to all of the following kinds of property wherever located ... (5) property, including rights of action, which prior to the filing of the petition he could by any means have transferred or which might have been levied upon and sold under judicial process against him, or otherwise seized, impounded or sequestered .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether [a] tax refund is subject to the restrictions on wage garnishments of the Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1968.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wallerstedt v. Sosne
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.