Anthony v. Anthony’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 101 (Agent Orange Act of 1991) · 38 U.S.C. § 3101 · 45 U.S.C. § 231M (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 5 U.S.C. § 8130 · 5 U.S.C. § 8333 · 5 U.S.C. § 8334 · 5 U.S.C. § 8346
Relies on McCarty v. McCarty · Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Wissner v. Wissner · Yates v. Mobile America Sales Corp. · Ex Parte Burson
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Section 8130] in no way renders such benefits exempt from court process, nor expresses any congressional intent to remove these benefits from the normal operation of family law in the various states. Section 8130 does render void an assignment of the claim. An assignment is something done by the beneficiary (usually for the benefit of creditors), not by a court dividing a property right. In no way can appellee be considered a creditor, [citation omitted]. If Congress had intended to exempt the proceeds from court process, it would have used language as it did in the Railroad Retirement Act or as it did with benefits administered by the Veterans Administration[ 16 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"An assignment of a claim for compensation under this subchapter is void. Compensation and claims for compensation are exempt from claims of ereditors."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Leisure v. Leisure
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.