In re Oleson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 district ·

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. “The discovery of the cause of action, if such it may be termed, is thus set forth: “And the plaintiff further avers that he had no knowledge of the facts so concealed by the defendant until the year A. D. 1872, and a few weeks only before the bringing of this suit.” There is nothing further upon the subject. In this class of cases the ihaintifif is held to stringent rules of pleading and evidence, “and especially must there be distinct averments as to the time when the fraud, mistake, concealment, or misrepresentation was discovered, and what the discovery is, so that the court may clearly see whether, by ordinary diligence the discovery might not have been before made.” Stearns v. Page, 7 How. 819 , 829, 12 L. Ed. 928 . “This is necessary to enable the defendant to meet the fraud and the time of its discovery.” Moore v. Greene et al., 19 How. 69 , 72, 15 L. Ed. 533 . The same rules were again laid down in Beaubien v. Beaubien, 23 How. 190 , 16 L. Ed. 484 , and in Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 95 , 17 L. Ed. 836 . A general allegation of ignorance at one time and of knowledge at another are of no effect. If the plaintiff made any particular discovery, it should be stated when it was made, what it was, how it was made, and why it was not made sooner. Carr v. Hilton, 1 Curt. 280 , Fed. Cas. No. 2,436.”

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

2. ““The evil that may result from allowing attacks upon the validity of a discharge months after it has been granted is apparent. The bankrupt, having received his discharge, will ordinarily engage in new business enterprises, and may become indebted to many persons, who, in good faith, extend credit to him in the belief that the discharge granted bars the pre-existing indebtedness, and their rights will bo seriously affected if the discharge is revoked and held for naught. Section 15 of the act authorizes the revocation of a discharge upon an application made within one year from its date, but it must appear that the creditor has not been guilty of undue laches, and that the fraud charged has come to the knowledge of the creditor after the granting of the discharge. The burden is upon the petitioner to aver in his application the facts showing his freedom from laches, and, as, ruled in Wood v. Carpenter [ 101 U. S. 135 , 25 L. Ed. 807 ] supra, it is not sufficient to make in the application, general averment of conclusions.””

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