Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 F.1d 295 - Forgy v. Field

Forgy v. Field’s Empirical Analysis

102 F. 295 · 1900

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 1986
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1986

9 federal appellate · 5 district ·

120190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Hamilton v. Rathbone · Bank v. Sherman · Columbus Electric Co. v. Worden · J. W. Butler Paper Co. v. Robbins · In re Conhaim

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

  1. ““The creditor is not compelled to surrender a payment made to him on account, in the ordinary course of business, unless he has reason to believe that his debtor is insolvent and that a payment is a preference. If the creditor- is innocent in the transaction, he has his option to retain the payment and waive his claim to the balance of the account, or he may surrender the payment and present his claim for the whole account. He will do that which will be to his best interest, and his loss, in any event, will be one of degree.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Was received, to be sure, innocently, and without knowledge of that intent, hut the payment none the less worked a preference. It gave to the appellant an undue advantage over other creditors, and while the act will not permit a recovery by the trustee of the payment, because it was received innocently, it none the less remains that the meaning of the act is that, if the appellant seek further payment out of the estate of the bankrupt, he shall share equally with other creditors with respect to his claim.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““In this view of the scope and purposes -of the act, it certainly cannot be considered inequitable to require one who has received an undue portion of the estate, no matter if innocent, to surrender that advantage before participating in further distributions of the estate with those who have not received any such preference.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.