In re Stone’s Empirical Analysis
116 F. 35 · 1902
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1991
1 federal appellate · 3 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 Wolf v. Brass · Pipkin v. Williams · Chase v. Swayne · Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hayward · Clements v. Crawford County Bank
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.
““The facts necessary for the determination of the issues involved, as found and certified by the refeiee, are as follows: “The bankrupt claims as exempt as his homestead lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in block 14, in the town of Casa, Ark. The lots are in the business part of the town, and there is on them a wooden building 44 feet wide and 100 feet long, and in the southeast corner of the building a room 20 by 50 feet, both buildings under one roof, and divided by a frame partition. Entrance to this room was from the store and also from the street. The entire building was erected by the bankrupt in 1901, and the large room was used by him exclusively as a storehouse, and the smaller room rented out by him, and was used at one time as a billiard hall, and, up to the time he moved in, as a restaurant. On December 14th, six days before his failure, and in contemplation of bankruptcy, he moved his family, which up to that time had resided in a rented dwelling house in another part of the town, into the smaller.room, making it the home of his family, which consists of himself, wife, and six children. Until he moved into this room there was no effort to impress this property with the homestead character, though when built the bankrupt stated that he intended the buildings for a store and a home to live in. At the time the debts due from the bankrupt were contracted, no part of the premises was used as his homestead, and, from the character and arrangements of the building until he moved ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Irvin““The debtor is not required to occupy and use as a dwelling all ‘tlie improvements’ on the lot, for that would make it obligatory on him to occupy his barn and other outhouses for living purposes; and no- more is he required to occupy every room in Ms dwelling for domestic purposes. He may devote a part of his dwelling to business purposes. Our ancestors very generally carried on their business pursuits »in their dwelling houses. * * * ‘It is a strange and irrational idea, sometimes advanced, that a man ought to lose his homestead as soon as he attempts to make any part of it helpful in family expenses.’ * * * The premises In question having been impressed with the character of a homestead before the debtor was adjudged a bankrupt, his trustee in bankruptcy cannot rightfully claim the same as part of the bankrupt’s estate.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Coles
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.