Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 F.1d 967 - Adler v. Jones

Adler v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

109 F. 967 · 1901

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
February 1980
most recently cited

4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1980

4 district ·

30190119101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 United States ex rel. Adler v. Hammond · City Nat. Bank of Dallas v. Doolittle · In re Adler

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

  1. ““It comes, then, to this: If the court is satisfied upon the hearing that the composition offered would be very, considerably less than they might reasonably expect to realize in the administration of the assets in due course, then the composition is not for the hest interest of the creditors. In determining tills question the court will doubtless be influenced by the consideration that a man can ordinarily do better with his own property, and realize more therefrom, than can be obtained in course of judicial proceedings, with compulsory sales and expenses of administration.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In the absence of fraud and concealment, the question for the court seems to be, not whether the debtor might have offered more, but whether his estate would pay more in bankruptcy.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.