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

1. ““Ordinarily, where the receiver of the court has merely general directions to take into his possession the property of the bankrupt, and there is a claim that he has taken the property of a third person, the court, in conformity with general principles, would leave him to answer in any proper forum for his individual acts (Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334 [ 18 L. Ed. 257 ]; Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 176 [ 4 Sup. Ct. 355 , 28 L. Ed. 390 ]: McNulta v. Lochridge, 141 U. S. 327 [ 12 Sup. Ct. 11 , 33 L. Ed. 796 ]; Central Trust Co. v. East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co. [C. C.] 59 Fed. 523 ; High. Inj. § 298; Hale v. Bugg [C. C.] 82 Fed. 33 ); but where it appears without dispute, as it does here, that the third party cannot possibly have any legal rights to be established by the litigation in the state court, and the result of permitting it to be continued would not only suffer an injustice to the receiver, but indirectly tend to embarrass this court in administering the estate, the equitable powers of the court should be exercised both for the prevention of the injustice and to protect the court’s full jurisdiction. Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494 [ 26 L. Ed. 497 ]; Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 158 [ 5 Sup. Ct. 799 , 29 L. Ed. 83 ]; Garner v. Second Nat. Bank of Providence, 67 Fed. 833 [ 16 C. C. A. 86 ]; James v. Central Trust Co., 98 Fed. 489 [ 39 C. C. A. 126 ]; Mueller v. Nugent [ 184 U. S. 1 , 22 Sup. Ct. 269 , 40 L. Ed. 405 ], 7 Am. Bankr. R. 224.””

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