Citation network
Fha Vs. Burr
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 12, 1940
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 242 (1940) U.S. Supreme Court FHA v. BurrSearch
-
U.S. 242 (1940) Federal Housing Administration v. BurrSearch
-
is subject to garnishment for moneys due to an employee. The Supreme Court of the Michigan held that it was. Burr v. HeffnerSearch
-
appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan, that judgment was affirmed. The problem here is unlike that in Buchanan v. AlexanderSearch
-
from suit or to determine the extent to which it may be subjected to the judicial process. Federal Land Bank v. PriddySearch
-
Keifer & Keifer v. ReconstructionSearch
-
Finance Corp., 306 U. S. 381 . As indicated in Keifer & Keifer v. ReconstructionSearch
-
tendency of Congress to waive the immunity where federal governmental corporations are concerned. Keifer & Keifer v. ReconstructionSearch
-
In Michigan, a writ of garnishment is a civil process at law, in the nature of an equitable attachment. See Posselius v. FirstSearch
-
benefit of that civil process which was available in the appropriate state or federal proceeding. Federal Land Bank v. PriddySearch
-
by Michigan law execution under such a judgment may be had is, like the availability of garnishment, Federal Land Bank v. PriddySearch
-
execution. Since no consent to reach government funds has been given, execution thereon would run counter to Buchanan v. AlexanderSearch
-
of wages due an employee of the United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation was disallowed in MacCarthy v. UnitedSearch
-
Haines v. LoneSearch
-
a similar conflict of decisions has arisen. That it is not subject to garnishment, see Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. HardieSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Caudle, 171 Tenn. 43, 100 S.W.2d 238. And see Manufacturer's Trust Co. v. RossSearch
-
App.Div. 292, 299 N.Y.S. 398. That it is subject to garnishment, see Central Market, Inc. v. KingSearch
-
Gill v. ReeseSearch
-
McAvoy v. WeberSearch
-
Cf. Porto Rico v. RosalySearch
-
Campagna v. AutomaticSearch
-
Electric Co., 293 Ill.App. 437, 12 N.E.2d 695, with Commercial Investment Trust, Inc. v. WilliamSearch
-
Diamond Cork Co. v. MaineSearch
-
In Weston v. CitySearch
-
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. AndalusiaSearch
-
Duvall County v. CharlestonSearch
-
Chicago v. HasleySearch
-
As respects the forty government corporations listed in Keifer & Keifer v. ReconstructionSearch
-
See Nashville, C. & St.L. Ry. Co. v. WallaceSearch
-
Commonwealth Finance Corp. v. LandisSearch
-
F. 440, 443, 444. Cf. Pauchogue Land Corp. v. LongSearch
-
New South Wales v. BardolphSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court FHA v. BurrSearch
-
Federal Housing Administration v. BurrSearch
-
Burr v. HeffnerSearch
-
Buchanan v. AlexanderSearch
-
Federal Land Bank v. PriddySearch
-
See Posselius v. FirstSearch
-
MacCarthy v. UnitedSearch
-
Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. HardieSearch
-
Manufacturer's Trust Co. v. RossSearch
-
Central Market, Inc. v. KingSearch
-
Commercial Investment Trust, Inc. v. WilliamSearch
-
Cf. Pauchogue Land Corp. v. LongSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial