In re Karp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““It does not follow, however, that General Order 32, as amended, wholly precludes the judge from allowing amendments to specifications of objection after the return day. To be sure, when timely specifications are filed, the bankrupt is entitled to a prompt hearing thereon. If, however, the bankrupt considers that the specifications filed are insufficient in law or in fact, he may demur or except thereto, and seek a dismissal of the specifications or, in the alternative, a better statement of the grounds relied upon. On such an application, the judge at the earliest opportunity will hear the matter, and, if the application has merit, apply the proper remedy. If the proper remedy is not a dismissal of the specifications, but an order requiring their more particular statement, it can scarcely be doubted, especially in view of the closing observations in the Lerner opinion [Lerner v. First Wisconsin Nat. Bank, 294 U.S. 116 , 55 S.Ct. 360 , 79 L.Ed. 796 ] that under General Order 37 he has power to order the specifications to be amended, notwithstanding the fact that the time limited in General Order 32, as amended, for filing specifications, has expired. To be sure, in such a situation, the judge will be alert to prevent the frustration of the spirit of General Order 32. If he feels that the original specifications were so wholly lacking in particularity as to warrant the inference that they were filed merely as a stopgap to prevent the running of the time limited in General Orde”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Leach · Wolfe v. Tri-State Insurance

2. ““ ‘1. He has failed to explain satisfactorily certain losses of assets or deficiency of assets to meet his liabilities. “ ‘2. He has subsequently to the first day of the twelve months immediately preceding the filing of the petition transferred, removed, destroyed or concealed or permitted to be removed, destroyed or concealed some of his property with intent to hinder, and delay or defraud his creditors. “ ‘3. Bankrupt committed offenses, punishable under Section 29 of the United States Bankruptcy Act [11 USCA § 52].’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Leach

3. ““Applying these principles to the pending motion, it is at once obvious that specifications 1, 2, and 3 are wholly lacking in the requisite particularity. In re Scheffler (C.C.A.) 68 F.(2d) 902 . To allow such specifications to be cured by amendment subsequent to the return day would tend to frustrate General Order 32, as amended.””

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