Diaz v. Diaz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

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

1. ““State officials have recommended that legislation be enacted permitting garnishment and attachment of Federal wages and other obligations (such as income tax refunds) where a support order or judgment exists. At the present time, the pay of Federal employees, including military personnel, is not subject, to attachment for purposes of enforcing court orders, including orders for child support or alimony. The basis for this exemption is apparently a finding by the courts that the attachment procedure involves the immunity of the United States to suits to which it has not consented. “The Committee bill would specifically provide that the wages of Federal employees, including military personnel, would be subject to garnishment in support and alimony cases. In addition, annuities and other payments under Federal programs in which entitlement is based on employment would also be subject to attachment for support and alimony payments.” S.Rep.No.93-1356, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), 4 U.S.Code Cong, and Admin.News, at 8157. [Emphasis added, Citations omitted.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peterson v. Peterson · 503 F. Supp. 149 - Omega Accounts Servicing Corp. v. Koller

2. “Nothing in [section 659] or [its] legislative history, however, indicates any congressional intent to expose the Government to wider liability. The language of § 659 waives Government immunity only from legal process “brought for the enforcement * * * of [the] legal obligations to provide child support or make alimony payments.” The statute patently does not waive governmental immunity to other kinds of lawsuits * * *. In sum, we hold that under § 659, Congress has not consented to its fiscal officer being sued for any purpose other than enforcement of the legal obligation to provide child support or alimony payments. * * * 8”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 503 F. Supp. 149 - Omega Accounts Servicing Corp. v. Koller

3. “Indeed, it appears that the purpose and effect of 42 U.S.C. § 659 is to waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for garnishment and like purposes in a limited class of State court actions involving the support obligations of government employees receiving, for example, federal pensions. * * * [Emphasis supplied.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 503 F. Supp. 149 - Omega Accounts Servicing Corp. v. Koller