Willhite v. Willhite’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2015
17 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. § 1673 · 15 U.S.C. § 1677 · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on La Bellman v. Gleason & Sanders, Inc. · American Home Life Insurance v. Heide · James v. Logan · 71 Okla. Crim. 397 - Farrow v. State · Gilmer v. Hunt
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellee claims that by virtue of this statute and 15 U.S.C.A. 1673(b) the Federal Government has pre-empted the law and lifted the restrictions on garnishment of more than 25% of an employee’s wages when the support of a person is involved. This argument is without merit. 15 U.S.C.A. 1677 provides that: ‘This subehapter does not annul, alter or affect, or exempt person from complying with, the laws of any state: (1) prohibiting garnishment or providing for more limited garnishments than are allowed under this subchapter ^2^ * * * > As between this subchapter and state law—whichever is more restrictive and results in smaller garnishment is the one which must be applied in any given situation. First National Bank of Denver v. Columbia Credit Corporation, 179 Colo. 242 , 499 P.2d 1163 (1972). Oklahoma, by virtue of 31 O.S.1971 §§ 1 & 4, does not permit garnishment of more than 25% of an employee’s wages. There is no exception made for child support. Thus Oklahoma law is more restrictive than the governing federal law and must be followed. Therefore, we hold garnishment of more than 25% of appellant’s wages is not permitted.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Evans v. Evans · Crane v. Crane““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 any 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.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Evans v. Evans“4c 4c 4c $ 4< ' * “(b) The restrictions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply in the case of (1) any order of any court for the support of any person.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Evans v. Evans
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.