green
Positive treatment
3.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1927 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1927
1976
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sarfati v. Wood Holly Associates
Louis, S.F. & Tex. Ry., 270 U.S. at 3 , 46 S.Ct. at 183 (finding that statute of limitations under Federal Transportation Act does not apply to causes of action existing at time of enactment); Sohn, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) at 599 ; cf. Russell, 278 U.S. at 187-88 , 49 S.Ct. at 122-23 (noting that extension of limitations period under Federal Revenue Act not applicable to claims fixed under earlier provision); see also McCloskey & Co., 164 F.2d at 260 (stating that statute of limitations under Fair Labor Standards Act would not be applied retroactively to cause of action existing at time of amendmen…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sarfati v. Wood Holly Associates
Louis, S.F. & Tex. Ry., 270 U.S. at 3 , 46 S.Ct. at 183 (finding that statute of limitations under Federal Transportation Act does not apply to causes of action existing at time of enactment); Sohn, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) at 599 ; cf. Russell, 278 U.S. at 187-88 , 49 S.Ct. at 122-23 (noting that extension of limitations period under Federal Revenue Act not applicable to claims fixed under earlier provision); see also McCloskey & Co., 164 F.2d at 260 (stating that statute of limitations under Fair Labor Standards Act would not be applied retroactively to cause of action existing at time of amendmen…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. United States
Compare United States v. Wabash Railway Co., 270 U. S. 1 , 46 S. Ct. 182 , 70 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STRIPE Et Al., RECEIVERS,
v.
UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES
496.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 11, 1926.
269 U.S. 503
1926 U.S. LEXIS 932
Messrs. Ben. A. Matthews and Harold Harper, for petitioners., Solicitor General Mitchell and Messrs. Jerome Michael, Henry Gale, and Ralph F. Fuchs, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, for the United. States.
Butler.
Cited by 25 opinions | Published
Mr. Justice Butler
delivered the .opinion of the Court.
In this case there is presented the question whether, in the distribution of the assets of Johnson Shipyards Corporation among its creditors by receivers appointed in an equity suit, the United States under R. S. § 3466 is entitled to have its claim against the corporation for taxes first satisfied. The facts (300 Fed. 952) are in all respects similar to those in Price v. United States, ante, p. 492. The question of law involved is identical. The United States is entitled to priority.
Decree affirmed.