Sargent v. Helton’s Empirical Analysis
115 U.S. 348 · 1885
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1957 · most notably Sawyer (1888), Madisonville Traction Company v. Saint Bernard Mining Company (1905)
22 federal appellate · 5 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 Dietzsch v. Huidekoper · Dial v. Reynolds · Haines v. Carpenter · Chapman v. Brewer
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Circuit Court of the United States was, therefore, deprived of power, by the section just Quoted, to protect the rights of the plaintiff, unless the writ of injunction was authorized by the law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy. * * * In a timely suit brought by the assignee in bankruptcy, there is no doubt that, upon a proper showing, the Circuit Court might have enjoined proceedings in the attachment suits in the state court. This is the express ruling in Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 158 . But the plaintiff in this case is not the assignee in bankruptcy. Sullivan,-the transferee of Sargent, the vendee, at the bankruptcy sale, was the real plaintiff and the only party who, at the final hearing, asked for the injunction. The question, therefore, is, does any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy authorize an injunction at the instance of a purchaser of property at a bankruptcy sale, or his vendee, to stay proceedings in a state court?””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * ' * That the writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state, except in cases where such injunction .may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The case makes it clear that the injunction to stay proceedings in a state court is only allowed by the statute for the purpose of aiding the assignee in bankruptcy to discharge his duty and of protecting the property of the bankrupt estate for the equitable distribution among the creditors. But there is no act of Congress from which can be inferred authority to a court of the United States to issue- an injunction to restrain proceedings of a state court, at the instance of a purchaser at bankruptcy sale, or of his vendee.””
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.