Meadows v. Meadows’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably D'Avignon v. Graham (1991), Black v. Ball Janitorial Service, Inc. (1986)
1 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Rochin v. People of California · Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · 32 Ohio App. 2d 139 - Brown v. Brown · Littleton v. Littleton · Commons v. Bragg
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Enforcement of individual’s legal obligations to provide child support or make alimony payments (a) United States and District of Columbia to be subject to legal process Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 407 of this title) effective January 1, 1975, moneys (the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employment) due from, or payable by, the United States or the District of Columbia (including any agency, subdivision, or instrumentality thereof) 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 or the District of Columbia 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Oklahoma case law and the majority of decisions on this point do not support husband’s position. ‘[I]t is generally held that statutes exempting property from legal process in the enforcement of a claim against the husband are not applicable to a claim for alimony or support.’ “The exemptions provisions such as the one in 85 O.S.Supp.1971 § 48 [which generally exempted workers’ compensation benefits from claims of creditors and from execution or attachment] were enacted to exempt funds from the claims of creditors. The principal reason for these exemptions is to protect the dependents of the party claiming the exemption. The exemption statute should not be a device to relieve the workman from his obligation to support his wife and family.” Id. at 600.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.