Markham v. Fay’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6321 (Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966) · 26 U.S.C. § 6671 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Helvering v. Stuart · My Bread Baking Co. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc. · Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. v. Checkers, Inc. · 30 Mass. App. Ct. 728 - Evans v. Multicon Construction Corp. · National Shawmut Bank v. Joy
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he interest of any beneficiary hereunder, either as to income or to principal, shall not be anticipated, alienated, or in any manner assigned by such beneficiary and shall not be subject to any legal process, bankruptcy proceedings, or the interference or control of creditors or others, nor the subject matter of any contract or trust made or entered into by any beneficiary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Markham v. Fay“so as to give the trustee free reign but also so as to contain other language purporting to constrain the trustee merely to have something at which to point if the trust were attacked.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Markham v. Fay“hold [the Highland Avenue Nursing Home] and cash so to be acquired by her, as well as all other property which she may acquire as such Trustee together with the proceeds thereof,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Markham v. Fay
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.