Boyd v. Glucklich’s Empirical Analysis
116 F. 131 · 1902
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 23 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1990 · most notably Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States (1918), In re Sequoia Auto Brokers, Ltd. v. Idell (1987)
24 federal appellate · 23 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
Relies on Ex parte Robinson · McClatchy v. Superior Court of Sacramento · In re Rosser · State v. Matthews · Batchelder v. Moore
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) Under tlie general rules of law, and under the specific provisions of (he bankruptcy act, a court of bankruptcy has power and jurisdiction to make an order requiring the bankrupt to pay or deliver to his trustee in bankruptcy money or other property found to be in his possession or control, constituting a part of his estate in bankruptcy, and which he has not surrendered or accounted for, and to enforce his obedience to such order by commitment as for contempt. “(2) Two essential facts condition the lawful exorcise of the power to require a bankrupt or other person to pay or deliver to the trustee money or property in his possession. They are that the money or property directed to be delivered to the trustee is a part of the bankrupt estate, and that the bankrupt or person ordered to deliver it has it in his possession or under his control at the time the order of delivery is made.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Shachter · In re Barton Bros.““Dispatch in judicial proceedings is commendable, but, in proceedings involving the liberty of a citizen, he has a right not only to be informed of the precise claim against him, but, after receiving that information, he has a right to a reasonable time to prepare his answer and present his proofs, and, lastly, to be heard by counsel on the law and facts of the ease. While proceedings in bankruptcy may be summary, they should not be too summary; in other words, they should not be so summary as to deprive the bankrupt of those fundamental rights and privileges that belong to every citizen, among which are the right to be advised of the demand made upon him, and the right, after being so advised, to have a reasonable time to prepare his defense and produce his witnesses. The bankrupt act does not do away with these rights, and no eitizen forfeits them by being adjudged a bankrupt. Thp bankrupt act contemplates that proceedings in bankruptcy shall go forward with all reasonable dispatch compatible with the due and orderly administration of justice and a proper regard for the fundamental rights of the citizen. Construing the proceedings before the referee as we do, we think they were too summary in their character, and that it was against this summary proceeding the bankrupt asked to be heard, and that there was not accorded to him, and not intended to be accorded to him, by the referee, a reasonable time to answer the trustee’s application, or to be further examined or to introd”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Maki““A court of bankruptcy cannot lawfully order a bankrupt to deliver to bis trustee money or property be bas not got in bis possession or under bis control, and imprison bim if be does not comply with tbe order, as that would be imprisonment for debt, and tbe order would not be relieved of'that illegal and odious quality by calling it ‘imprisonment for contempt.’ * * * A court of bankruptcy cannot sentence a bankrupt to imprisonment for debt, any more than any other court of tbe United States can do that thing; and what it cannot do directly it cannot do by indirection, under another name. It cannot, therefore, lawfully order a bankrupt to deliver to tbe trustee money or property be bas not got in his possession or under his control, and imprison him if be does not comply with tbe order. Plainly, that would be imprisonment for debt, and tbe order is not relieved of that illegal and odious quality by calling it ‘imprisonment for contempt.’ Tbe court that makes such an order is in contempt of tbe law and constitution, and not the bankrupt, in contempt of tbe court.” ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Felson
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.