Legal Opinion

Federal Housing Administration, Region No. 4 v. Burr

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 12, 1940No. 354PublishedCited by 556 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Douglas

The question presented here is whether the Federal Housing Administration is subject to garnishment for moneys due to an employee. The Supreme Court of the State of Michigan held that it was. 289 Mich. 91; 286 N. W. 169. We granted certiorari in view of the importance of the problem and the confused state of the authorities on the right to garnishee recently created agencies or corporations of the federal government.

In 1930 -respondent obtained final judgment in Mich-

igan against one Heffner and one Brooks. In 1938 petitioner was served with a writ of garnishment issued by the Michigan court.…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. Weston and Others v. the City Council of CharlestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
  3. Porto Rico v. Rosaly Y CastilloSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  4. Buchanan v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
  5. City of Chicago v. HasleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1861

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by556 opinions

  1. Federal Deposit Insurance v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. Dalehite v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  4. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988

551 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API