Avery v. Avery’s Empirical Analysis
114 F.2d 768 · 1940
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably Waller v. Waller (1974), Albin v. Albin (1979)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Pepper v. Litton · Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Wetmore v. Markoe · Boynton v. Ball
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no peculiar sanctity surrounding the words “property settlement.” Bankruptcy courts sit in equity . . and have power “to sift the circumstances surrounding any claim to see that injustice or unfairness is not done in administration of the bankrupt estate.” (Id. at 770).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is urged here that the decision of the District Court was in the teeth of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 , 114 A.L.R. 1487 . Assuming that the decision was contrary to the holdings of the highest court of Michigan, still we can find no basis for the conclusion that Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra, has any application to the question presented here. The court was not sitting in a trial at common law, — to the contrary, it was considering the effect in bankruptcy of facts found by its special master.” 114 F.2d at page 770 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Hence, this Court has held that a bankruptcy court has full power to inquire into the validity of any claim L.Ed. 288 asserted against the estate. * * * And the mere fact that a claim has been reduced to judgment does not prevent such an inquiry. As the merger of a claim into a judgment does not change its nature so far as provability is concerned, [citation], so the court may look behind the judgment to determine the essential nature of the liability for purposes of proof and allowance. [Citation.]””
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.