Syracuse Engineering Co. v. Haight’s Empirical Analysis
110 F.2d 468 · 1940
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Lawson v. Ford Motor Co. (1996), Vandergrift Estate (1962)
16 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
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 Ritter v. United States · Sumi v. Young · Canute Co v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Coal Co · Tillinghast v. Richards · Grandison v. National Bank of Commerce
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Fair valuation of an estate such as this might conceivably be based on forced sale prices, or on fair market prices, or on so-called intrinsic values, irrespective of sale. A proper regard for the interests of the bankrupt, as well as for the interests of his creditors, compels the conclusion that fair market price is the most equitable standard. ... It involves a value that can be made available for payment of debts within a reasonable period of time. . . . And fair market value implies not only a ‘willing buyer’, but a ‘willing seller.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“results when the aggregate of a debtor's property is not sufficient at a fair valuation to pay his debts, which means a fair market price that can be made available for payment of debts within a reasonable period of time, and”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Fair valuation of an estate such as this might conceivably be based on forced sale prices, or on fair market prices, or on so-called intrinsic values, irrespective of sale. A proper regard for the interests of the bankrupt, as well as for the interests of his creditors, compels the conclusion that fair market price is the most equitable standard. Bonbright and Pickett, Valuation to Determine Solvency under the Bankruptcy Act, 29 Col.L.Rev. 582, 597, 598; 1 Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1940) 74-81, collecting cases. It involves a value that can be made available for payment of debts within a reasonable period of time. In re United Finance Corp., supra [ 104 F.2d 593 (7th Cir. 1939)]; Babbitt v. Read, 2 Cir., 236 F. 42, 47 , certiorari denied 243 U.S. 648 , 37 S.Ct. 475 , 61 L.Ed. 946 ; Stern v. Paper, D.C.N.D., 183 F. 228, 230, 231 , affirmed 8 Cir., 198 F. 642 . And fair market value implies not only a “willing buyer,” but a “willing seller.” Grandison v. National Bank of Commerce, 2 Cir., 231 F. 800, 804 , certiorari denied 242 U.S. 644 , 37 S.Ct. 213 , 61 L.Ed. 542 ; Irvin Trust Co. v. Manufacturers’ Trust Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 6 F.Supp. 185 ; Collier, supra at 77.”
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.