Watkins v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Whether the claim for credit is a legal or equitable claim, if it has been duly presented to the accounting officers, and has been by them disallowed, it is the proper subject of set-off under that act, but it cannot be adjudicated in a federal court unless it has been so presented and disallowed. U. S. v. Wilkins, 6 Wheat. 143 . The rejection of such a claim bj the accounting officers constitutes no objection to it as a claim for set-off, as it cannot be admitted in evidence unless it has been presented and disallowed, as required by the act of congress. U. S. v. Macdaniel, 7 Pet. 11 ; U. S. v. Ripley, Id. 25 . Such claims as fall within that act are not specifically defined, and in view of that fact this court has held that the act intended to allow the defendant the full benefit at the trial of any credit, 'whether it arises out of the particular transaction for which he was sued or out of any distinct and independent transaction which would constitute a legal or equitable set-off, in whole or in part, of the debt for which he is sued, subject, of course, to the requirement of the- act that the claim must have been presented to the proper accounting officers, and have been by them disallowed. U. S. v. Fillebrown, 7 Pet. 48 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Yates v. United States

2. “‘‘That in suits between tlie United States and individuáis, no claim for a credit shall be admitted, upon tidal, hut such as shall appear to hare been presented to tlie accounting officers of the treasury, for their examination, and by them disallowed, in whole or in part, unless it should be proved, to the satisfaction of The court, that the defendant is. at the time of trial, in possession of vouchers not before in his power to procure, and that he was prevented from exhibiting a claim for such credit at the treasury, by absence from the United States, or some unavoidable accident.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Pierson