In re Rusch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In view of these adjudications upon the bankrupt act of 1867, we feel constrained to hold that it is only some action taken or order made in the bankruptcy proceeding itself which can be reviewed by an original petition addressed to this court, under subdivision ‘b’ of section 24 of the bankrupt act, and that the power thereby conferred ‘to superintend and revise’ the action of the District Court does not extend to suits brought in that court by the trustee in bankruptcy against third parties to collect the assets of the estate, or to suits brought by third parties against the trustee, whether such suits are rightfully or wrongfully brought in that court, as to which point we express no opinion at this time. Such suits as those last referred to, whether at law or in equity, are not proceedings in bankruptcy, or ‘con troversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings,’ within the meaning and intent of the law authorizing petitions for review, but they are suits which must be reviewed in the ordinary -way, by appeal or writ of error, when they have reached a final determination in the court of first instance. We can discover nothing in the language or policy of the recent bankrupt act which would seem to require the various Circuit Courts of Appeals to review every interlocutory order made or proceeding taken, in an ordinary action at law or in equity, in a suit between a trustee in bankruptcy and a third party, which happens to be brought in the District Court, simply because the t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Doroshow v. Ott