In re Rosser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““Sucli a course must be appropriate to the ease, and just to the party affected. It must give him notice of the charge or claim against him, and an opportunity to be heard respecting the justice of the order or judgment sought. The notice must be such that he may be advised from it of the nature of the claim against him, and of the relief sought from the court if the claim is sustained.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Lewin · In re Frank

2. ““There can be no doubt that under the general rules of law and under these specific provisions of the bankruptcy act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418]) the court and the referee were vested with the right and subjected to the duty of making the necessary orders to require the bankrupt and all other persons who had the possession and control of the property of the bankrupt estate to surrender and deliver it to the trustee. Such orders constitute one of the essential means by which the court and the referee are empowered to collect the estate of the bankrupt. It is a broad and' comprehensive power, and great caution should be exercised to observe its limits and to issue under it only lawful orders. But without its lawful exercise, the administration of the estates of bankrupts would in many eases be complicated and tedious, all the assets would be wasted in litigation, and the beneficent purpose of the bankruptcy law would fail of accomplishment. Two essential facts limit this power and condition its lawful exercise. They are that the money or property directed to be delivered to the trustee or other officer of the court is a part of the bankrupt estate, and that the bankrupt or i>erson ordered to deliver it has it in his possession or under his control at the time that the order of delivery is made. If the property is not a part of the estate, obviously no lawful order for its delivery to the trustee can be made. If the money or propert”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Adler

3. ““It is an axiom of pleading and practice that one may not bring a suit for one cause of action, and recover from another; much less may one recover an order or judgment for money or property without any suit or notice of the claim upon which it is founded. In the case in hand no notice was given to the bankrupt that any hearing would be had upon any claim that he should be required to pay over the $2,500 in controversy before the order to that effect was made. No order to show cause why he should not pay it was made or served upon him before the absolute order for its payment was presented to him. No opportunity was afforded to him to he heard upon the questions it presents. He was cited to appear and be examined under section 21 of the bankrupt act, and his testimony and that of various other witnesses were, taken before the referee upon that citation; but no notice was served upon him that the claim which culminated in the order for the payment of the $2,500 was to be made or was in issue at that examination, or that the. testimony there elicited was taken for the purpose of establishing that claim, and no opportunity was presented to him to produce witnesses in his defense, or to be heard upon the issues of fact or of law which the issue of the order involved. Such a proceeding lacks every element of due process of law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Alphin & Lake Cotton Co.