Walker v. Treadwell’s Empirical Analysis
699 F.2d 1050 · 1983
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Williams v. Marlar (In Re Marlar) (2000), United States v. Devall (1983)
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 548 · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Ratchford v. Gay Lib · Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board · Cheeseman v. Nachman · Roddam v. Martin
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this sub-chapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law. (b) No other provision of law, enacted before, on, or after April 20, 1983, may be construed to limit, supersede, or otherwise modify the provisions of this section except to the extent that it does so by express reference to this section.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Lazin · In Re Crandall“Accumulated or past due social security payments which are covered by 42 U.S.C.A. § 407 are among the exemptions provided by non-bankruptcy federal law that the debtor can elect instead of the exemptions listed in the Bankruptcy Code. H. Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 360, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 5963, 6316. The House Report states: The debtor may choose the Federal exemptions prescribed in subsection (d), or he may choose the exemptions to which he is entitled under other Federal law and the law of the State of his domicile. If the debtor chooses the latter, some of the items that may be exempted under other Federal laws include: -Social security payments, 42 U.S.C. 407. If a debtor chooses the alternative of taking exemptions listed in the Bankruptcy Code, he may exempt, among other things, his ‘right to receive a [future] social security benefit,’ but not an accumulated benefit that has already been distributed. 11 U.S.C.A. § 522 (d)(10)(A). See H. Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 362, reprinted in U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 5963, 6318 (Section 522(d)(10)(A) ‘exempts certain benefits that are akin to future earnings of the debtor. These include social security. ...’). This analysis of section 522 illustrates that the exemption from the operation of the bankruptcy law provided by 42 U.S.C.A. § 407 is not absolute. If a debtor chooses the Bankruptcy Code exemptions, he gives up the protection of section 407, freeing accumulated social security bene”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re McFarland · In Re Moore“The object of section 548 is to prevent the debtor from depleting the resources available to creditors through gratuitous transfers of the debtor's property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.