Gedeon v. Gedeon’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2022
11 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
Relies on Hanson v. Denckla · Fuentes v. Shevin · Milliken v. Meyer · Griffin v. Griffin · Endicott-Johnson Corporation v. Encyclopedia Press
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen the creditor's interest in collecting a valid judgment is balanced against the debtor's interest in keeping his property, which has already been protected by prior notice and hearing,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is not entirely clear what precisely due process requires by way of procedures for post-judgment filings such as this. However, when the creditor’s interest in collecting a valid judgment is balanced against a debtor’s interest in keeping his property, which has already been protected by prior notice and hearing, in our view, the due process requirements of the United States Constitution, amendment XIV, are satisfied by the procedures of the Act. The Act requires that notice be mailed to the last known address of the debtor and that there be a ten-day stay of execution. The Act also has liberal provisions for an additional stay of enforcement of the judgment and for further hearings. While these procedures may not comply with the strict requirements of Fuentes [v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 , 92 S.Ct. 1983 , 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) ] supra, those procedures are not required in post-judgment proceedings. See Dunham, Post Judgment Seizures: Does Due Process Require Notice and Hearing? 21 S.D.L.Rev. 78 (1976). We find that the procedures of the Act am ply protect the appellant’s due process rights. Bittner v. Butts, 514 S.W.2d 556 (Mo.1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“basic requirements of notice and hearing”
1 later decision 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.