Warder v. Brady’s Empirical Analysis
115 F.2d 89 · 1940
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1986 · most notably Williams v. Austrian (1947), First National Bank v. Lake (1952)
19 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 501 · 11 U.S.C. § 502 · 28 U.S.C. § 377
Relies on Continental Illinois Nat Bank Trust Co of Chicago v. Chicago R I & P Ry Co · Fred Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa · Harrison v. Chamberlin · Straton v. New · Riehle v. Margolies
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““These cases related to ordinary bankruptcy procedure, and are not conclusive here. The bankruptcy court in reorganization proceedings under § 77B, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207 , had, and under Ch. X of the 1938 Act now has a wider control, that comprehends not only property of the debtor in his actual or constructive possession, but also property of the debtor in the hands of lien holders. The formulation of a plan of reorganization contemplates a readjustment of secured as well as unsecured debts, and so the summary power of the court extends to all of the debtor’s property that can be affected by a plan, whether or not the property is in his possession.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“proceeding to enforce a lien upon the property of the debtor”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is well settled by decisions inter-pretating this section [Sec. 23 of the Bankruptcy Act as amended by the Chandler Act of June 22, 1938] that property or money held adversely to the bankrupt can only be recovered in a plenary suit and not by a summary proceeding in a bankruptcy court. The mere assertion of an adverse claim is not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the courts of bankruptcy, for they have power to inquire preliminarily whether the claim is so unsubstantial and obviously insufficient, either in fact or in law, as to be plainly without merit; and if so, to dispose of it summarily. On the other hand, if the claim be found to be substantial and the property is in the possession of the claimant, the court is without jurisdiction to proceed at all even in a plenary proceeding without the consent of the defendant, unless the other conditions prescribed by the statute are met. There can be no doubt that under these authorities the claim of the special receiver in the pending case would be considered substantial and adverse within the meaning of § 23. At the time of the institution of the reorganization proceeding, the fund was not actually or constructively in the possession of the trustee, but in the possession of the special state court receiver who set up the substantial and bona fide contention that the title to the fund resided in him under the decree of the state court and not in the bankrupt. * * * * * * “If the contention of the special receiver is sus”
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.