Wardman v. Leopold’s Empirical Analysis
85 F.2d 277 · 1936
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 1992
6 federal appellate · 4 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 41 U.S.C. § 14
Relies on Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner · Hobbs v. McLean · National City Bank v. Hotchkiss · STANTON v. Embrey, Administrator · Barnes v. Alexander
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““§ 203. Assignments of claims; * * * “All transfers and assignments made of any claim upon the United States, or of any part or share thereof, or interest therein, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor, and all powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities for receiving payment of any such claim, or of any part or share, thereof, shall be absolutely null and void, unless they are freely made and executed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such a claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof. Such transfers, assignments, and powers of attorney, must recite the warrant for payment, and must be acknowledged by the person making them, before an officer having authority to take acknowledgements of deeds, and shall be certified by the officer; and it must appear by the certificate that the officer, at the time of the acknowledgement, read and fully explained the transfer, assignment, or warrant of attorney to the person acknowledging the same. * * * ” [Italics ours.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The distinction between an action before the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Board of Tax Appeals to recover a tax unlawfully collected, and a suit at law in the proper court, is apparent from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 279 U.S. 716 , 725, 49 S.Ct. 499 , 502, 73 L.Ed. 918 , where, in sustaining the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to entertain appeals from the Board of Tax Appeals, the court said: “The Board of Tax Appeals is not a court. It is an executive or administrative board, upon the decision of which the parties are given an opportunity to base a petition for review to the courts after the administrative inquiry of the Board has been had and decided.” We think it clearly appears that the contract here is not1- one to conduct litigation in the courts in the ordinary sense, but to recover a claim from the government, and therefore comes within the rule that such contracts are not champertous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There is a well-defined distinction between contracts for bringing-suit in court, where the compensation of the attorney is to be derived from the amount recovered, and in the event of defeat he is to be without any compensation whatever, and contracts where the claim is sought to be recovered against the government or. agencies of the government. * * * * * #”
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.