Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 U.S. 484 - Spofford v. Kirk

Spofford v. Kirk’s Empirical Analysis

97 U.S. 484 · 1878

Citation profile

144
cited by 144 later decisions
28
cited 28 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
May 2016
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 9 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 144 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1949), Henningsen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1908)

35 federal appellate · 9 district · 16 state decisions

220187818801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Trist v. Child · United States v. Gillis · Mandeville v. Welch · Gaussen v. United States

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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We are brought, then, to the inquiry whether such an assignment of a claim against the United States, made before the claim has been allowed, and before a warranty has been issued for its payment, has any validity, either in law or in equity. * * * The language of the act is too sweeping and positive to justify us in giving it a limited construction. We cannot say, when the statute declares all transfers and assignments of the whole of a claim, or any part or interest therein, and all orders, powers of attorney, or other authority for receiving payment of the claim, or any part thereof, shall be absolutely null and void, that they are only partially null and void, that they are valid and effective as between the parties thereto, and only invalid when set up against the government.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It Is hard to see how a transfer of a debt can be of no force, as between the transferee and the debtor, and yet effective, as between the creditor and his assignee, to transmit an ownership of the debt or create a lien. * * * We cannot see, when the statute declares that all transfers and assignments of the whole of a claim, or any part or interest therein, and all orders, powers of attorney, or other authority for receiving payment of the claim, * * * shall be absolutely null and void, that they are only partially null and void, and that they are valid and effective as between the parties thereto, and only invalid when set up against the government.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It would seem to be impossible to use language more comprehensive than this. It embraces alike the legal and equitable assignments. It includes powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities for receiving x>ayment of any such claim, or any part or share thereof. It strikes at every derivative interest, in whatever form acquired, and incapacitates every claimant upon the government from creating an interest in the claim in any other than himself.””
    1 later decision 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.