Schreiber v. Kellogg’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co. · Meredith v. City of Winter Haven · Markham v. Allen
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of the settlor in imposing restrictions on the alienation of the beneficiary's interest is to prevent him from losing his interest by his own improvidence. There is no reason, however, why his interest under the trust should be exempt from the claims of those who have by their services conferred a benefit on his interest. He should not be permitted to profit at their expense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schreiber v. Kellogg“for their sole and separate use, not to be anticipated, or assigned by them, in any manner whatever, nor subject to any attachment, alienation or sequestration for their debts, contracts or engagements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schreiber v. Kellogg“without power on their part to anticipate or assign the same, in any manner whatever, or be subject to any attachment, alienation or sequestration for their debts, contracts or engagements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schreiber v. Kellogg
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.